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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3.  @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
  4. lmao watch his debate with James Tour he just had. The guy sends so many mixed messages.
    5
  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
  6. Fun fact we struggle to even link modern humans to homo sapiens from 10 000+ odd years or later.
    4
  7. 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
  8. Hugh Ross isn't fun for the naturalist he goes for the jugular with hard science right away lol.
    4
  9. Optimus, piggyback ride now!
    4
  10. 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
  11. May as well say slugs from mars and it wouldn't sound anymore absurd lol
    3
  12.  @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
  13.  @mcmanustony  lmao are you the science?
    3
  14. 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
  15.  @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
  16.  @TahoeJones  Just a reminder the common descent of humans from neanderthal and denisovan theory has been refuted.
    3
  17.  @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
  18. ​ @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
  19.  @zipperpillow  Somehow it's does not come as a surprise your struggle is real in more ways than one.
    2
  20.  @zipperpillow  lmao you are pretending common descent is real, honey phyla came first not last
    2
  21.  @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
  22. 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
  23. @Devil's Logic Devils logic is right, twist and lie. Nothing fallacious about it. It's basic logical reasoning.
    2
  24.  @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
  25. 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
  26.  @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
  27.  @ronsnow402  Our brains are not our minds. The mind is an immaterial construct that cannot be accounted for naturalisticlly.
    2
  28. lmao you really walked into that one.
    2
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Funny how youtube makes comments inv and they magically show up if you sort by new
    2
  33. 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
  34.  @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
  35. That's not origin of life, that's transfer of life. That's just throwing the ball down the court. A non-answer.
    2
  36.  @joshuawoolridge8378  Product of a mind requires a mind, it's as simple as that it's the paradigm of reality.
    2
  37.  @joshuawoolridge8378  its circular reasoning, how can you trust what your brain says given random process produced it.
    2
  38.  @wingit7335  did she fulfill over 100% prophecies, walk on water, raise the dead, and die and resurrect herself?
    2
  39. Ocarina of time is indeed one of the best, but better than Chrono Trigger? I personally would say no.
    2
  40. For the millionth time racial is not the same as racist.
    2
  41. Evolution as a whole is, it's not science it's a fantasy of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes).
    2
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @osio7528  The statement makes perfect sense.
    1
  46. @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
  47. @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
  48. @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
  49. @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
  50. I bet you used one man army and noob tubes Mahmud.
    1