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

WaterspoutsOfTheDeep
Lex Clips
comments

Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "Lex Clips" channel.

Even though I agree with much Peterson says, I find it almost unbearable to listen to him explain himself as it's as if he's trying to defend a thesis before a panel. It's horrendous I can't fathom how people waste their time listening to him lol.
7
That is the understatement of the century lol. It's been calculated there isn't enough time in the life of multiple universes stacked on top of each other for glucose to even form correctly that it can be used for life... glucose one of the most simple of molecules for life.
7
@BlueDutchCigarillo420 I find it amazing how the concept of the human rational brain can pair intent and progress from said rational brain to the concept of evolution which is mindless and claimed to be pure adaptation. It's not a model of advancement to perfection it's a model of good enough to survive. Food for thought. The concept of evolution is nonsensical through and through from every field of science you examine it from.
5
lmao watch his debate with James Tour he just had. The guy sends so many mixed messages.
5
@williamhornabrook8081 I'm so sick of gaming last 8 years, everything is like starfield just open world garbage with terrible non-engaging story. Just bland all around. I just start a game and never get into it because the world is dead. FF15 could have been amazing but they focused on the open world bs and it was like the mainstoryline was 40% done. Amazing combat system you don't even get into unless you do all the garbage mmo fetch quest absurdity. Last good game I've played was maybe last of us which was what 2013? Mass effect andromeda had a non-existant plot it was a joke. I enjoyed ni no kuni but that was like 2012 the sequel was abysmal in comparison as far as storyline and so on.
5
Fun fact we struggle to even link modern humans to homo sapiens from 10 000+ odd years or later.
4
The world building was so cool. I loved the trilogy so much. For me I think maybe FF10, kingdom hearts, or chrono trigger would be my top for enjoying.
4
Hugh Ross isn't fun for the naturalist he goes for the jugular with hard science right away lol.
4
Optimus, piggyback ride now!
4
Life exists and naturalism can't account for it full stop. It's scientifically impossible. Only intelligent design can. The sole purpose of life is to know the creator of life, Jesus who made you solely for that relationship.
3
May as well say slugs from mars and it wouldn't sound anymore absurd lol
3
@Mishk You just figured that out? lol He's always been like this, I can't grasp how his youtube channel grew so much and he has so many interviews as there is no message or substance to anything he says.
3
@mcmanustony lmao are you the science?
3
That's origin of life researchers for you lol. They all got nothing yet 2-5 years and they will create life they have it almost solved!!!! haha they are the ultimate grifters.
3
@jake8855 I disagree the advancement of science has long made Atheism obsolete. On top of that continually strongly pointed towards intelligent design. God is all but a scientific reality at this point given the requirement of one at every turn. All the major factors of reality require it as established by science now. Start of the universe, structure of the universe, life, rational thought.
3
@TahoeJones Just a reminder the common descent of humans from neanderthal and denisovan theory has been refuted.
3
@spatrk6634 Why because he actually understands chemistry at a level beyond these origin of life researchers and gets to the core of their bs calling out their claims. They have no chemistry to produce anything.
3
 @laza6141 mitochondrial eve and y chromosome adam dating from modern humans does not match the full timeline of homo sapiens which goes back much farther indicating a separation.
2
@zipperpillow Somehow it's does not come as a surprise your struggle is real in more ways than one.
2
@zipperpillow lmao you are pretending common descent is real, honey phyla came first not last
2
@laza6141 Babble yourself. The dating is quite accurate in a general sense as it's just averaging mutations per generation then counting back to when they stop appearing.
2
A naturalistic origin of life is a nonsense notion. Logically it just is. Rationality does not come from irrationality. Logic does not come from chaos. Garbage in garbage out. Logic only comes from a mind.
2
@Devil's Logic Devils logic is right, twist and lie. Nothing fallacious about it. It's basic logical reasoning.
2
@bobthetroll Not even remotely. It's completely straight forward and logical. You are just upset you've never heard a logical argument against your ridiculous worldview far less one that is so strong and coherent it completely upends it. What's pathetic is your reaction.
2
We already have solved them. They just like our universe require a mind thus creator. Life is based on an immaterial concept, information. Information requires a mind at it's source. The fine tuning argument has thousands of scientific evidences at this point, and the big bang and space time theorems tell us the universe requires a first cause aka God. So science tells us the universe requires an intelligent and caring God, which fits this narrative? Well which gives us the big bang, fine tuned universe, and an intelligent caring God? Christianity, nothing else comes close. The sole purpose of life is to know the creator of life, Jesus who made you solely for that relationship.
2
@laza6141 Just to drive home the point at how RIP evolution is in academia meaning the theory as a whole. 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
@ronsnow402 Our brains are not our minds. The mind is an immaterial construct that cannot be accounted for naturalisticlly.
2
lmao you really walked into that one.
2
Wow duct... that's an awfully generous probability when mathematicians have calculated it would take multiple ages of universes just for a bio identical molecule of glucose to be formed from nonbiological processes. There are over a trillion ways for the molecules to hook up and only one is what life uses. Glucose just glucose. It's mind boggling how people think a materialistic naturalistic model is the way to do science, all it does is hinder scientific progress. There is a reason intelligent design birthed modern science because it actually works and isn't hollow at it's core with a missing deus ex machina mechanism that magically manifests rationality from irrationality aka magic.
2
Yes he quickly points out how absurd they are they have zero science to support even the most basic starting point for origin of life the fundamental molecules yet origin of life researchers constantly grift they have almost figured it out and we will produce life in the next few years when they literally haven't the vaguest clue about anything.
2
To posit humans evolved one needs to first establish evolution is even possible. That hasn't even been done in the academic field, not only that biologists have been trying to replace the theory completely for over a decade because it does not work, and even worse than both of those the natural record like the fossil record completely contradicts the predicted evolutionary timeline with phyla coming first not last and the majority showing up hundreds of millions of years ago and decreasing over time to now. Along with it being logically and scientifically nonsense as it can't even produce a single cellular mechanism as there is no environmental pressure for the building blocks that make it up only for the complete mechanism so there is no way the theory can account for even the most basic pieces of biology.
2
Funny how youtube makes comments inv and they magically show up if you sort by new
2
You missed showing where He breaks his commandments/laws. Secondly we don't know what made in his image means exactly. Third read a commentary on virtually everything you brought up it's easy to put it in a search. Fourth specifically blood cult makes no sense, blood represents life and the punishment for sin is death. Thus the concept of substitution is extremely easy to understand so it's mind boggling you can't grasp it. The blood of animals never cleansed sin only covered it, the blood of Jesus was the only blood the only life that could pay the the price and cleanse sin, that is a sacrifice given by God himself. List goes on and on use a modicum of critical thought like establishing the context first surrounding your premise and see if it holds and you'd see most of what you said is nonsense before even reading a commentary to educate yourself on what the text says.
2
@thereignofthezero225 It was. I'll clarify. Mankinds most proven knowledge the space time theorems have told us there must be a God. Borde and Vilenkin took Hawking and Penrose work on classic general relativity and expanded it as far as possible with 5 papers in an attempt to disprove the Big Bang and it's Christian implications and concluded "all reasonable cosmic models are subject to the relentless grip of the space-time theorems." They gave examples where you wouldn't need an absolute beginning to space and time but in such models you wouldn't have life. So there has to be a causal agent beyond space and time(God). But are they a personal "God"(intelligent, caring) or "something else." Fine tuning argument tells us the causal agent is a personal God. So we logically have God, and a personal God. So an easy test is which faith gives us the big bang, and fine tuning implications of an intelligent caring God. Well which has a personal caring God, and gets the claims of a big bang creation correct? Only Christianity nothing else comes close.
2
That's not origin of life, that's transfer of life. That's just throwing the ball down the court. A non-answer.
2
@joshuawoolridge8378 Product of a mind requires a mind, it's as simple as that it's the paradigm of reality.
2
@joshuawoolridge8378 its circular reasoning, how can you trust what your brain says given random process produced it.
2
@wingit7335 did she fulfill over 100% prophecies, walk on water, raise the dead, and die and resurrect herself?
2
Ocarina of time is indeed one of the best, but better than Chrono Trigger? I personally would say no.
2
For the millionth time racial is not the same as racist.
2
Evolution as a whole is, it's not science it's a fantasy of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes).
2
@alexnik1181 The paradigm for reality is mind is always required for rationality. Rationality does not come from irrationality, that is magic the burden of proof is on you the atheist to prove this dues ex machina mechanism. Mind>magic
2
@alexnik1181 Sorry that would be a no. Rationality from rationality is the paradigm of this universe, you want to present something counter you have to prove it. Not only is it counter to the paradigm it's a nonsensical notion in and of itself. You need to prove your mythology of magic to do away with the need for God. The intellectual cost weighs heavy on your side not mine.
2
@alexnik1181 You actually need me to tell you that a mind is rational for like the tenth time now? Rationality is a product of consciousness. There is no requirement for the God science presents or Christianity to come from anything. You are trying to redefine God. Also since you hold to the argument of created coming from creator who created the universe that created you? Your argument only works in the reverse.
2
@osio7528 The statement makes perfect sense.
1
@Devil's Logic Cart before the horse. What do computers run on, logic, and who built said computer and software. A mind. This argument is never going away. And lets not forget the inconvenient fact that is always ignored with naturalistic origin of life in that not only does the dna/rna need to come about by random unguided process, so does the dna/rna replicator. The expectation that random unguided processes can accomplish such things is throwing aside all logic and reason. Same thing most people do with evolution, just expect "time" can magically to anything while throwing aside all logic and reason about the actual logistics required for such a conception to even occur. This was presented quite well in the study that showed evolutionary process cannot give mammals over seven pounds.
1
@Devil's Logic I don't think so. It's completely rational reasoning to see naturalism is absurd as an explanatory argument. I wouldn't hold my breath with cellular automata holding any weight in the future. We haven't the vaguest clue how a massive amount of basic biology even functions. It's 2021 and we don't even know how a fertilized egg knows how to differentiate into an organism. Yet that coding must exist somewhere right?
1
@Devil's Logic No it shows we don't understand how biology knows how to do many of the things it does like the basic example I just gave. Basic logical reasoning dictates naturalism is logically absurd.
1
@Devil's Logic No I do know it's limits and went so far as to state one of them. Rationality does not come from irrationality. That's where the "basic reasoning" thing comes in. Just like how the big bang shows us the universe requires a causal agent. This is basic reasoning stuff at it's core.
1
I bet you used one man army and noob tubes Mahmud.
1
@LisaMaeSV650S It's because being a Christian is not blind faith but a real personal relationship with Jesus. The promise of the Holy Spirit is to reveal and make real Jesus to you. More real than if you saw Jesus in the flesh and do miracle seeing he is God, as the bible establishes would still not be enough for you or me to give our lives to Jesus because it wasn't for the disciples as they all denied Jesus on the cross. But after Pentecost with the Holy Spirit those same disciples would rather give their lives than deny Jesus and did and so did hundreds of thousands willingly in the Colosseum.
1
To posit humans evolved one needs to first establish evolution is even possible. That hasn't even been done in the academic field, not only that biologists have been trying to replace the theory completely for over a decade because it does not work, and even worse than both of those the natural record like the fossil record completely contradicts the predicted evolutionary timeline with phyla coming first not last and the majority showing up hundreds of millions of years ago and decreasing over time to now. Along with it being logically and scientifically nonsense
1
Our universe require a mind thus creator. Life is based on an immaterial concept, information. Information requires a mind at it's source. The fine tuning argument has thousands of scientific evidences at this point, and the big bang and space time theorems tell us the universe requires a first cause aka God. So science tells us the universe requires an intelligent and caring God, which fits this narrative? Well which gives us the big bang, fine tuned universe, and an intelligent caring God? Christianity, nothing else comes close. The sole purpose of life is to know the creator of life, Jesus who made you solely for that relationship. We were born into this universe not from it. We are a mind/spirit not the matter that contains it. The transmitter is not the information.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Look up what common descent is pseudo science. Science and logic does not support the theory itself which shouldn't even be called a theory as it's not falsifiable but ironically fits the criteria of mythology. Beyond that the natural record does not display the theory it completely refutes it showing the opposite with phyla coming first. So much so we had almost double the phyla hundreds of millions of years ago!!!
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Look up what common descent is pseudo science. Beyond that the natural record does not display the theory it completely refutes it showing the opposite with phyla coming first. So much so we had almost double the phyla hundreds of millions of years ago!!!
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Look up what common descent is pseudo science.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw cont.. Science and logic does not support the theory itself which shouldn't even be called a theory as it's not falsifiable but ironically fits the criteria of mythology. Beyond that the natural record does not display the theory it completely refutes it showing the opposite with phyla coming first. So much so we had almost double the phyla hundreds of millions of years ago!!!
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Science and logic does not support the theory itself which shouldn't even be called a theory as it's not falsifiable but ironically fits the criteria of mythology.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Beyond that the natural record does not display the theory it completely refutes it showing the opposite with phyla coming first. So much so we had almost double the phyla hundreds of millions of years ago!!!
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Beyond that the natural record not agreeing but flat out refuting showing the reverse, phyla coming first. So much so we had almost double the phyla hundreds of millions of years ago!!!
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Correct, variation allowed within the genome. Natural selection. Not magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes, like consistent divine providence of evolution stopping at the desired outcome in order to function as a theory).
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Correct, variation allowed within the genome. Natural selection. Not magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes) which evolution requires.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Mindless matter can't manifest code. The basis of all life is an immaterial concept, information stored in DNA. There is no physical process or natural phenomenon that can create such communicative information. Down stream evolution requires foresight and the ability to stop at a desired outcome. What it proposes is nonsensical. It was derived from ancient pagan Greek myth, Darwin never originated the concept. Just like the prebiotic pool as origin of life was taken from a ancient babylonian myth.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Mindless matter can't manifest code. The basis of all life is an immaterial concept, information stored in DNA. There is no physical process or natural phenomenon that can create such communicative information. Down stream evolution requires foresight and the ability to stop at a desired outcome. What it proposes is nonsensical.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Mindless matter can't manifest code. The basis of all life is an immaterial concept, information stored in DNA. There is no physical process or natural phenomenon that can create such communicative information. Down stream evolution requires foresight and the ability to stop at a desired outcome.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Mindless matter can't manifest code. The basis of all life is an immaterial concept, information stored in DNA. There is no physical process or natural phenomenon that can create such communicative information.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw The basis of all life is an immaterial concept, information stored in DNA. There is no physical process or natural phenomenon that can create such communicative information.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Mindless matter can't manifest code. There is no physical process or natural phenomenon that can create such communicative information.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Of course they are, that's called extinction, or reductive evolution a benefit from a loss of information. That's what the long term ecoli experiment was with partial citrate metabolism, and how bacteria get antibiotic resistance. It's a far cry from creating information in a higher state.
1
@laza6141 Variation allowed within the genome is not being able to get dog breeds the size of a elephant. Expression within set limits. Sure mutations can be part of natural selection but it's the exception not the rule and on top of it we are talking reductive evolution a chance benefit from loss of genetic information that isn't critical enough to cause extinction. Although it's called evolution it does not help but hurt the case for the argument establishing information degrading not progressing to a higher state. Evolution is about as far from being a fact as humanly possible. It's an archaic belief in magic behind the diversity of life essentially. It has it's origins from ancient pagan Greek belief, just like the prebiotic pool for life myth taken from ancient Babylonians.
1
@laza6141 Variation allowed within the genome is not being able to get dog breeds the size of a elephant. Expression within set limits. Sure mutations can be part of natural selection but it's the exception not the rule and on top of it we are talking reductive evolution a chance benefit from loss of genetic information that isn't critical enough to cause extinction. Although it's called evolution it does not help but hurt the case for the argument establishing information degrading not progressing to a higher state.
1
@laza6141 Variation allowed within the genome is not being able to get dog breeds the size of a elephant. Expression within set limits. Sure mutations can be part of natural selection but it's the exception not the rule and on top of it we are talking reductive evolution a chance benefit from loss of genetic information that isn't critical enough to cause extinction.
1
@laza6141 cont. Although it's called evolution it does not help but hurt the case for the argument establishing information degrading not progressing to a higher state. Evolution is about as far from being a fact as humanly possible. It's an archaic belief in magic behind the diversity of life essentially. It has it's origins from ancient pagan Greek belief, just like the prebiotic pool for life myth taken from ancient Babylonians.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw It's not about the mutations being stable but adding something of value. It's a statistical issue. There are random number generator studies creating language that tackle this. One mutation is within the realm of reason the problem is many are needed to create anything. That's like needing to hit the lottery back to back many times over. It's just not a functional theory to base how we got anything.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Sure but that's not evolution at that point it's intelligent design. Even still there would be issues given we flat out don't see it in the fossil record like with the Cambrian explosion. There is no evolutionary progression, phyla come first and much more.
1
 @MikeJones-mf2fw Sure but that's not evolution at that point it's intelligent design. There is still no evolutionary progression, phyla come first and much more.
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw Divine guidance of evolution is not evolution then it's just intelligent design. The problem is we still see something different in the fossil record like the reverse of phyla coming first.
1
@FPSIreland2 Mind>magic. Information requires a mind at it's source thus God. You propose magic(probability manifesting consistently rational outcomes). Does an author write a book or throw it into a bin with a jar of ink?
1
@MikeJones-mf2fw I don't want to drag this on but there really is significant evidence of mass direct creation. During the Cambrian explosion for example 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. Both bottom-dwellers and open ocean swimmers appear simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion. Optimization of the ecological relationships among the Cambrian animals, including predator-prey relationships, occurred without any measurable delay.
1
@jimbob8992 Evolution is logically and statistically impossible. Information decays it doesn't progress to a higher state. Random number generator studies on creation of language prove words far less sentences can't be produced by probability in any meaningful way thus evolution is impossible as it's a direct correlation to the proposed creation of information in evolution as no mind is involved it's pure chance.
1
As I get older almost all that matters to me first and foremost is an engaging story. Otherwise I just end up not playing the game after a few attempts. I'm over dead worlds with good graphics.
1
You need trillions and trillions of years multiple universes of time just for the theoretical time need for even the most basic fundamental molecules of life to even be produced. That's without them even doing anything together. Far less a single cell of life. Life is clearly the product of a top down creation from a God, not bottom up from molecules going to a higher state. These molecules are all structured and tent pole components that all are chicken and the egg type issues that need to exist altogether at the same time. Think proteins that have to be folded many times in specific ways yet there are no enzymes coded to do it and the enzymes are made from proteins so... even the most simple molecule glucose has trillions of ways the molecules can be linked yet only one way that is compatible for life. Dr James Tour has gone over these issues extensively. Origin of life research is a scam.
1
@ronsnow402 You misunderstood. I made a different point entirely. The mind like information is not a material construct, just like language isn't or love. However you are wrong in assuming immaterial cannot interact with the material. Information can physically manifest an effect in reality. Look up Luc Montagnier study materializing phantom DNA in water. That however is not an assertion I made about the mind. It could very well be. We are learning about the quantum holography of DNA by Peter Gariaev who should win the Nobel Prize for such a profound discovery. But such science is at least publicly, in infancy level.
1
@ronsnow402 Information is not physical. It's an immaterial concept. Information requires a transmitter, that doesn't equate to it being the information itself. Same thing with language so think of language in this way to understand the concept.
1
@ChumX100 A cable is wire. They had metalwork. Power plant is the same as battery. Battery was a urn with acidic solution and electrodes.
1
what's hilarious is they haven't the vaguest clue and never will in their life time or even their students lifetimes. Yet make outrageous claims like they are close and will produce life in 2-5 years and they have figured it out and it completely fits into darwinian evolution and so on while lying through their teeth and they have nothing NOTHING. They can't even produce the fundamental molecules in a early earth setting. Far less said molecules the form required by biology.
1
@Rabaikal 3 didn't feel like 3, they set it up for more games with indoctrination of Shepard all along then magically they tell us it's all in our head and pull the cosmic child and reapers are actually trying to preserve the memory of life bs. It was totally nonsensical. It's like they retconned their whole universe.
1
Same thing is done in regards to biological research being greatly hindered because of the evolution narrative which is even more of a threat. It's 2021 now and macro evolution is still science myth because speciation isn't found in the fossil record among everything else. This is a completely anti-science mindset that isn't even based on ethics or morality but the threat to the secular perspective away from naturalism which logically should not be involved in the scientific process at all but be a byproduct of it's findings.
1
@mcmanustony In other words a year later and your view of science is just as ignorant as it was before. Nice progress.
1
@Dark-Light_Ascendin "we all know" lmao who? Ignorant Satanists that fabricate their own fantasy about what the biblical text says sure.
1
@Dark-Light_Ascendin Cross reference for me the context of what "made in the image of God" is defined as. I'll be waiting along with your other claim on his law broken you also couldn't substantiate.
1
The sole purpose of life is to know the creator of life, Jesus who made you solely for that relationship.
1
@thereignofthezero225 Jesus is eternity itself. The universes existence was created out of nothing by him and is sustained within his very being. Jesus becoming flesh is the story of him becoming a part of our suffering to redeem us(a covenant the trinity agree'd to accomplish before the creation of the universe the redemption of man and destruction of sin). The only reason the work of the cross was sufficient is because Jesus is God and that sinless blood he shed is from both fully man and God thus the sacrifice is eternal the blood cannot die the sacrifice is eternally active. The bible says that blood shed was transferred to a fountain in heaven. There was no power in the blood till the act of the sacrifice, the payment for the justice God requires for sin was accomplished
1
Bob probably has said everything there is to say on Rogan anyways. Nothing else to get out of him except for theorizing which would be fun talks.
1
@joshuawoolridge8378 As I just demonstrated I act like it didn't because it can't. Natural selection does not select for truth it selects for survival, it cant account for rationality that would be circular reasoning and is self destroying concept. How can you trust your brain if it was produced by random unguided process? Would you trust a computer made in such a way or the data it gives? Get it yet?
1
@joshuawoolridge8378 @joshuawoolridge8378 As I just demonstrated I act like it didn't because it can't. Natural selection does not select for truth it selects for survival, it cant account for rationality that would be circular reasoning and is self destroying concept.
1
@joshuawoolridge8378 Ironic, as I already demonstrated evolution can't produce a mind. It's self refuting.
1
@joshuawoolridge8378 Naturalism selects for survival not truth. Would you trust a computer produced from random process? How can you trust what your brain tells you? It's circular reasoning it's self refuting.
1
@joshuawoolridge8378 It's circular reasoning it's self refuting. How can you trust what your brain tells you given it was made from unguided process? nature selects for survival not truth.
1
@newmonkmusicproject8336 All rulers, that's what "king OF kings" means. In other words the supreme authority of all.
1
@wingit7335 What you just presented is conflating personal free will to authority which is wrong and it's self refuting as there wouldn't be one without the other. Secondly there can be no other ultimate authority than God as truth is objective not subjective. We don't all have our own truth. Truth is exclusive not all inclusive. Otherwise that is self refuting too. Third Jesus himself said not I have the truth but I am the truth meaning the ultimate truth to all things. The life, the ultimate source of life to all things. You do not exist independent and sovereign, you very existence is predicated on his grace allowing you to exist as right now he is suspending his judgment on you till the end of days so you have the option to accept his substitution for your own sin which the punishment is death. Furthermore the very matter and energy that make you up comes from and is sustained by Jesus. He quite literally is holding the fabric of your being together while it functions on borrowed energy while he allows you in sin to exist and deny him hoping you seek the gift he paid for you. So not only does he have all authority he used it for your benefit.
1
@wingit7335 What you just presented is conflating personal free will to authority which is wrong and it's self refuting as there wouldn't be one without the other. Secondly there can be no other ultimate authority than God as truth is objective not subjective. We don't all have our own truth. Truth is exclusive not all inclusive. Otherwise that is self refuting too. Third Jesus himself said not I have the truth but I am the truth meaning the ultimate truth to all things. The life, the ultimate source of life to all things.
1
@wingit7335 You do not exist independent and sovereign, you very existence is predicated on his grace allowing you to exist as right now he is suspending his judgment on you till the end of days so you have the option to accept his substitution for your own sin which the punishment is death. Furthermore the very matter and energy that make you up comes from and is sustained by Jesus. He quite literally is holding the fabric of your being together while it functions on borrowed energy while he allows you in sin to exist and deny him hoping you seek the gift he paid for you. So not only does he have all authority he used it for your benefit.
1
@rizdekd3912 It means top down rationality aka mind behind everything, that either directly created or structured by providence the improbable events to occur in the naturalistic setting still akin to a miracle by all intents and purposes for life to begin. All the fundamental molecules are like tent poles and required to exist each on their own at the same time for life and there are countless chicken and egg issues too like folded proteins with no enzymes to do it which enzymes are proteins. Yet same thing with the immaterial information, the coding stored in said enzymes to fold in said structured way and so on and so on. So top down is the only rational sense of anything forming.
1
@rizdekd3912 That is kinda going off on another tangent now. Sin ultimately requires a moral standard which would be from said creator and requires a mind a will developed enough to grasp it which we don't have at the origin of life as life showed up more and more complex only as the conditions on earth allowed it. I would say that is evidence in itself of top down creation in some regard as there appears to be a foresight in the appearance of the progression of life. Just as it was for the appearance of first life. If you want to talk about a Christian biblical perspective, the bible does state the universe exists within and is sustained by God. That the universe is governed by a law of decay. That sin is ultimately separation from God which is from disobeying him. That man was created to exist in tandem with God, that is why separation from God, is stated as a death, humans are like the living dead they are fish out of water. God is called the Word, the truth truth itself, God created by the transfer of information we are a word based universe if you will an argument could be made. And to tie that in all life is based on this immaterial concept of information stored in DNA. So separation from the Word, God is allowing decay to happen. We do see decay in genomes of species not evolution to a higher state of information like with the famous ecoli citrate experiment and with the spanish flu, and so on. The only evolution we do see is reduction evolution which is a benefit from a decay or removal information in the genome. That is how the ecoli could partially metabolize citrate, that is largely how bacteria gain antibiotic resistance they aren't actually adapting they are losing a function that allowed the drug to be uptaken into the cell as an example. So that is interesting. So I would say there is a case to be made but I or perhaps anyone in general doesn't have right now or will never have the specifics to tie it all together in an exhaustive way. There is appears to be relation to the narrative in many ways though. The bible also states sin was around before man was creation because of the fall of Lucifer and the preAdamic race he turned against God and God destroyed which are only mentioned as demons and why they are stated as earth bound disembodied spirits that seek a body, they aren't stated to be fallen angels in the text which many confuse. This is all really going off on different tangents though and you brought up sin so may as well mention the text states said God does know everything and created the plan for redemption of man before the creation of the universe and one purpose of this universe is the ultimate destruction of sin. So that being said one could argue said God never did setup perfection of biology and naturalistic systems to this end. Another argument would be no system like specifically biology can be perfect anyways so God was actively sustaining it perhaps in perfection for man at least at one point. There are lots of ways one could approach the conversation. But as science has progressed we have gotten more answers like with the discovery of DNA, information theory and the decay of information like in DNA and so on that does tie in so I feel there are more answers to come. We do have mitochondial eve and y chromosome adam data which is interesting too. Perhaps there is more to be said as how many of these things could be tied into a top down argument. I haven't thought about it frankly.
1
@mcmanustony Immaterial is the nature of what information is. 2+2=4 is information that exists whether it's recorded on information storage or not. Likewise just as I established so is math. The same can be extrapolated about the mind as a mind from purely naturalistic origin cannot account for a rational mind, natural selection does not select for truth whether our beliefs are true it selects for survival. By extension a circular logic comes then from the truth of naturalism as that came from our mind thus our mind cannot have a purely naturalistic origin.
1
@zhamed9587 I agree Dawkins is a massive fool. Mindless matter and mutation manifesting code, aka a form of language aka information an immaterial concept is utter absurdity. He essentially believes in magic, rationality from irrationality. Evolution is a mythology of magic. It's hilarious because he knows it and has it pointed out to him by other academics in debates and gets laughed at yet is the one with the big mouth pointing fingers and making fun of other people for believing in mind instead of his magic. He is a total clown.
1
@jake8855 Not true. The majority of scientists that study the active creation of the universe believe in God like cosmologists. Finite start to universe spacetime theorems requires a causal agent a God. Fine tuning evidence demonstrates that causal agent is a personal being as they took care creating the universe. Discovery of DNA that all life is based on an immaterial concept information that requires a mind. The rational mind like humans has requires a rational source a God, as naturalism selects for survival not truth. Naturalism cannot produce a being with rationality. Would you trust a computer created by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain your mind from such a thing. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Not true. The majority of scientists that study the active creation of the universe believe in God like cosmologists. Finite start to universe spacetime theorems requires a causal agent a God. Fine tuning evidence demonstrates that causal agent is a personal being as they took care creating the universe. Discovery of DNA that all life is based on an immaterial concept information that requires a mind. The rational mind like humans has requires a rational source a God, as naturalism selects for survival not truth.
1
@jake8855 Not true. The majority of scientists that study the active creation of the universe believe in God like cosmologists.
1
@jake8855 Finite start to universe spacetime theorems requires a causal agent a God. Fine tuning evidence demonstrates that causal agent is a personal being as they took care creating the universe. Discovery of DNA that all life is based on an immaterial concept information that requires a mind. The rational mind like humans has requires a rational source a God, as naturalism selects for survival not truth. Naturalism cannot produce a being with rationality. Would you trust a computer created by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain your mind from such a thing. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Finite start to universe spacetime theorems requires a causal agent a God. Fine tuning evidence demonstrates that causal agent is a personal being as they took care creating the universe. Discovery of DNA that all life is based on an immaterial concept information that requires a mind. The rational mind like humans has requires a rational source a God, as naturalism selects for survival not truth.
1
@jake8855 Naturalism cannot produce a being with rationality. Would you trust a computer created by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain your mind from such a thing. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Naturalism cannot produce a being with rationality. Would you trust a computer created by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain your mind from such a thing. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Naturalism cannot produce a being that can rationalize. Would you trust a computer created by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain your mind from such a thing. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Would you trust a computer created by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain your mind from such a thing. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Naturalism cannot produce a being that can rationalize. Would you trust a computer created by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain your mind from such a thing?
1
@jake8855 Naturalism cannot produce a being that can rationalize. Would you trust a computer created by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain? Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Naturalism cannot produce a being that can rationalize. Would you trust a computer created by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain?
1
@jake8855 Evolution can't make a being that can rationalize. Would you trust a processor fabricated by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain? Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Evolution can't make a being that can rationalize. Would you trust a processor fabricated by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain?
1
@jake8855 Evolution can't make a being that can rationalize.
1
@jake8855 Would you trust a processor fabricated by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain? Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Would you trust a processor fabricated by random unguided process? Why would you trust your brain?
1
@jake8855 Would you trust a processor fabricated by random unguided process?
1
@jake8855 Why would you trust your brain?
1
@jake8855 Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything.
1
@jake8855 Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking our rationality will reveal anything. It's self refuting.
1
@jake8855 You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@jake8855 You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition?
1
@jake8855 Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@jake8855 Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction."
1
@jake8855 Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@jake8855 Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality.
1
@jake8855 Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads... because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. That's irrational in the strictest sense showing Atheism and science conflict.
1
@jake8855 Atheists don't follow where the evidence leads... they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. That's irrational in the strictest sense showing Atheism and science conflict.
1
@jake8855 Atheists do not follow where the evidence leads... they're self limiting their own rationality. That's irrational in the strictest sense showing Atheism and science conflict.
1
@jake8855 Atheists do not follow where the evidence leads... they're self limiting their own rationality.
1
@jake8855 Atheists arent following where the evidence leads, they're self limiting their own rationality
1
@jake8855 So Atheists do not follow where the evidence leads... they're self limiting their own rationality. That's irrational in the strictest sense showing Atheism and science conflict.
1
@jake8855 Atheists do not follow where the evidence leads...
1
@jake8855 @theists do not follow where the evidence leads... they're self limiting their own rationality. That's irrational in the strictest sense showing Atheism and science conflict.
1
@jake8855 @theists do not follow where the evidence leads...
1
@jake8855 ...they're self limiting their own rationality. That's irrational in the strictest sense showing Atheism and science conflict.
1
@jake8855 Comments go poof if I don't break them up. To finish the whole of the naturalistic model atheism is predicated upon is a mythology of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes) to do away with the need for a mind. Mind>magic
1
@jake8855 Comments go poof if I don't break them up. To finish the whole of the naturalistic model atheism is predicated upon is a mythology of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes) to do away with the need for a mind. Mind>magic
1
@jake8855 Comments go poof if I don't break them up. To finish the whole of the naturalistic model atheism is predicated upon is a mythology of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes). Mind>magic
1
Evolutionary biologists can't even get the theory to work period long over a century. The theory is garbage and the only observable evidence is reductive evolution which is as good as nothing for supporting the theory.
1
@laza6141 Quite the contrary it is not. Reductive evolution may bare the name and get headlines but it's false advertising it's contrary to what the theory needs to prove. Natural selection is not evolution. Information like information theory states only degrades over time, it does not magically increase to a higher state there is no physical process or natural phenomenon that creates such communicative information including natural selection. Evolution is a dead theory in academia as far as explanatory power for diversity of life it's core tenet for existing.
1
@laza6141 Quite the contrary it is not. Reductive evolution may bare the name and get headlines but it's false advertising it's contrary to what the theory needs to prove. Natural selection is not evolution. Information like information theory states only degrades over time, it does not magically increase to a higher state there is no physical process or natural phenomenon that creates such communicative information including natural selection. Evolution is a dead theory in academia.
1
@laza6141 Quite the contrary it is not. Reductive evolution may bare the name and get headlines but it's false advertising it's contrary to what the theory needs to prove. Natural selection is not evolution. Information like information theory states only degrades over time, it does not magically increase to a higher state there is no physical process or natural phenomenon that creates such communicative information including natural selection. Evolution is an expired theory in academia as far as explanatory power for diversity of life it's core tenet for existing.
1
@laza6141 Quite the contrary it is not. Reductive evolution may bare the name and get headlines but it's false advertising it's contrary to what the theory needs to prove. Natural selection is not evolution. Information like information theory states only degrades over time, it does not magically increase to a higher state there is no physical process or natural phenomenon that creates such communicative information including natural selection.
1
@laza6141 Quite the contrary it is not. Reductive evolution may bare the name and get headlines but it's false advertising it's contrary to what the theory needs to prove. Natural selection is not evolution. Information(the basis of life) like information theory states only degrades over time, it does not magically increase to a higher state.
1
@laza6141 Quite the contrary it is not. Reductive evolution may bare the name and get headlines but it's false advertising it's contrary to what the theory needs to prove.
1
@laza6141 Except we don't see such things. Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further evolution can't create. The theory is dead in academia it's as far away from being a fact as possible. It shouldnt even be called a theory it's not falsifiable.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further evolution can't create. The theory is dead in academia it's as far away from being a fact as possible. It shouldnt even be called a theory it's not falsifiable. There was a world conference back in 2016 where biologists tried to brainstorm a replacement theory. I don't get where you think it's so established and observed it's not, the natural record extensively refutes it too.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. The theory is dead in academia it's as far away from being a fact as possible. It shouldnt even be called a theory it's not falsifiable. There was a world conference back in 2016 where biologists tried to brainstorm a replacement theory. The natural record like the fossil record extensively refutes it too.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. The theory is dead in academia it's as far away from being a fact as possible. It shouldnt even be called a theory it's not falsifiable. he natural record like the fossil record extensively refutes it too.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. The theory is as far away from being a fact as possible. It shouldnt even be called a theory it's not falsifiable. There was a world conference back in 2016 where biologists tried to brainstorm a replacement theory. The natural record like the fossil record extensively refutes it too.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. The theory is far away from being a fact as possible. It shouldnt even be called a theory it's not falsifiable. The natural record like the fossil record extensively refutes it too.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. It shouldnt even be called a theory it's not falsifiable. The natural record like the fossil record extensively refutes it too with phyla coming first.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. The natural record like the fossil record extensively refutes it too with phyla coming first. And so on and so on. The theory is practically dead in academia.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. The natural record like the fossil record extensively refutes it too with phyla coming first. And so on and so on.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. Natural record extensively refutes it like the fossil record giving us phyla first. List goes on and on. It's a fact, it quite literally by definition shouldn't even quality as a scientific theory as it's not falsifiable.
1
@laza6141 Natural selection is not evolution. Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. Natural record extensively refutes it like the fossil record giving us phyla first. List goes on and on.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. Natural record extensively refutes it like the fossil record giving us phyla first. List goes on and on.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. The theory is dead in academia. The fossil record directly extensively refutes it with phyla coming first as only one of many examples.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. The fossil record directly extensively refutes it with phyla coming first as only one of many examples. It's an observed failure.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. Fossil record refutes it with phyla coming first. The theory is dead in academia.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. Fossil record refutes it with phyla coming first. The theory is toast in academia.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. Fossil record refutes it with phyla coming first. The only fact is it's a failed theory.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. Fossil record refutes it with phyla coming first.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create. Only observed fact is it's a failed theory.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed. Only observed fact is it's a failed theory.
1
@laza6141 Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create.
1
@laza6141 Only observed fact is it's a failed theory. Only observe mutations are loss of genetic information giving a benefit. That's a failure. Fossil record refutes it like with phyla coming first. It's a dead theory in academia.
1
@laza6141 Only observed fact is it's a failed theory. Only observe mutations are loss of genetic information giving a benefit. That's a failure. Fossil record refutes it like with phyla coming first.
1
@laza6141 Only observed fact is it's a failed theory. Only observed mutations are loss of genetic information giving a benefit. That's a failure for the model.
1
@laza6141 You keep saying mutation being oblivious to the context of it. The core of the argument is information as genetics is code. Is new information being created or is information being destroyed. We only see destruction and a side benefit from that is all you are speaking of. That is the context here. Accumulation of code degradation only is a progression to extinction. You are not seeing the forest through the trees. There is no mutation of a increase of information to a higher state like new communicative code being created.
1
@laza6141 You keep saying mutation being oblivious to the context of it. The core of the argument is information as genetics is code. Is new information being created or is information being destroyed. We only see destruction and a side benefit from that is all you are speaking of. That is the context here. Accumulation of code degradation only is a progression to extinction. You are not seeing the forest through the trees. There is no mutation of a increase of information to a higher state like new communicative code being created.
1
@laza6141 Not sure why you brought that up it's quite literally irrelevant to the conversation. What you brought up is not new genetic information anymore different than a new dog breed and the loose classification of "species". Antibiotic resistant bacteria are quite literally a result of destruction of the genome. Same with the long term ecoli experiament with citrate metabolism, not sure why you think plastic would be any different for arguments sake. You realize mealworms can digest plastic styrofoam. Also just fyi it's common in plants to have a mutation with their chromosomes being copied multiple times. In fact it's extremely common in the orchid hobby and usually pretty sought after to get a "tetraploid" because the leaves are thicker and flowers last longer, a generally more robust plant. And just fyi a tetraploid can mate with a diploid unlike whatever you referenced it can give a triploid baby, the triploid is what can't mate with a diploid or tetraploid but can mate with other triploids.
1
@laza6141 So you are confused about this conversation.
1
Never played Chrono Trigger or Ocarina of Time?
1
@robyfaraa4105 greatest game of all time implies the person is old enough to have been around for the majority of them released and played the major ones though...
1
Nigerian Space Force on the side LMAO
1
@alexnik1181 FICTION: lightning bolts can strike a pool of prebiotic minutiae and manifest a quaternary 4 billion unit self-correcting self-replicating bioinformatic system complete with ribosomes, vesicles, enzymes, proteins, ATP. You probably thought some scientist somewhere has a coherent theory about how biology began! 😂 too much funny
1
@alexnik1181 No naturalism/atheism is making the claim counter to the paradigm of reality that rationality can come from irrationality. That's on you to prove and establish. How many times does this need to be spoonfed to you? Your mythology of magic is baseless nonsense.
1
@mcmanustony Of course it does, it claims there is no God by definition. It is not Agnosticism that says I don't know. Atheists want their cake and to eat it too.
1
@TahoeJones Just a reminder it has been ruled out humans are descended from neanderthal or denisovan. We have a hard time even linking modern humans to homo sapiens from 10 000+ years ago even as we struggle to find evidence they were like us as in mentally, what they could eat and so on.
1
@Dogbertforpresident What's lol about that? rationality does not come from irrationality. Garbage in garbage out. Logic comes from a mind.
1
Fascinating comment given modern science, universities, the scientific method, the rise of the West which ultimately brought the world into the modern era and so on are all attributed to Christianity the "antithesis of science" as you word it lol. You realize even the big bang theory is wholly derived from the biblical text, being falsified and published by a Catholic astronomer.
1
Don't forget alien technology could just as well be technology from civilizations past just several thousands of years or so ago.
1
@parapitro8828 I think it's far more probable if they have "alien technology" it was from our past not real aliens lol. There is so much weird shit from the past pointing to prior human civilization like paved roads in the Atlantic ocean, tools and other objects dated very old, structures that can't be explained without higher technology and so on. This is such a logical answer yet as far as I see it's never talked about it's always aliens from who knows where lol.
1
The sole purpose of life is to know the creator of life, Jesus who made you solely for that relationship.
1
@StillAliveAndKicking_ Wasn't there something like that with dr octavia or whatever his name was from spiderman? lol
1
It's far beyond naturalism too. It's pretending rationality can come from irrationality. Far less whatever life even is in the first place. Scientists can't even say what is lost if you just kill a yeast cell to bring it back to life. No clue what was lost.
1
Agree, Chrono Trigger too.
1
Just for conversations sake. His hypothetical argument about Christianity is completely incoherent. The concept of intelligent life beyond earth has no implications on contradiction to Christianity, nor does it mean there needs to be multiple Jesus and so on which is also completely incoherent in regards to the biblical text and what it says. A few whys. Even if there was intelligent life on other planets that sinned there was never a promise or plan for redemption for any other species other than man. The biblical text says before the creation of the universe the trinity made the plan for the redemption of man and the first covenant to accomplish it. There already are multiple other species in the biblical text which have sinned (angels, and the pre-adamic race only known as demons) which have no redemption from Jesus. So from a biblical perspective there could be other intelligent species in the universe and if they sinned there is no biblical mandate for Christ Jesus to have needed to redeem them. So his argument makes zero sense it's completely incoherent.
1
It's all nonsense and doesn't work. There is no current naturalistic theory to origin of life far less even a clue to how the fundamental molecules could form. Molecules that's a far cry from forming whatever life is.
1
@nirjhar4803 I'll check a few of those out thank you. I have witcher 3 for ps4 but never got into it. I have titan fall 2 for ps4 like the other guy recommended but never played it and thought it was online only multiplayer like the first game so unplayable now. I have microsoft game pass for my pc any recommendations for that? I know it has the whole Halo franchise but it may just be dated and kinda garbage aside from the newest releases for all I know. I know Gears of War is a big franchise also on there but no clue if that is any good. Been mostly just playing civilization 6 and a little outerworlds and thinking of just starting the whole mass effect triology over again now that the legendary edition is out because I just don't know what to play.
1
That isn't origin of life then. Origin of life is origin of life not transfer of life.
1
@weareallanimals As I said that still isn't the ultimate origin of life even if you preface it with earth. Not in the sense of the term "origin of life" with the goal the research is ever done for, which is as in the ultimate origin of life. Even if you want to play games with semantics it's still 50/50 as that still isn't the ultimate origin of the life that came to earth. But I'm sure you realize that lol.
1
@weareallanimals Glad you see what the phrase origin of life means now. Complicated stuff...
1
@weareallanimals Ah yes someone gave the boat lets ignore where it's made. lol.
1
what? gran turismo over midnight club 2/3?!
1
@rizdekd3912 He doesn't he gives commentary on the origin of life researchers chemistry as a highly accredited chemist himself who understands biological chemistry. He calls out their grifting claims and shows they have zero chemistry to produce what they claim and lists all the issues. They literally can't even make the most fundamental molecules MOLECULES for life.
1
It was like a nice graphic novel, the gameplay was terrible though, the woke sequel and content they left for the dlc is an abomination of the ages.
1
The very fact we can even do math because of the coherent inherentness of the universe is a pretty profound realization.
1