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

  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
  2.  @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
  3.  @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
  4.  @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
  5. ​ @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
  6. ​ @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
  7.  @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
  8.  @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
  9.  @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
  10.  @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
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14.  @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
  15.  @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
  16. ​ @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
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24.  @laza6141  Reductive evolution is all that has been observed. Only observed fact is it's a failed theory.
    1
  25.  @laza6141  Reductive evolution is all that has been observed and only proves further it can't create.
    1
  26. ​ @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
  27.  @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
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32.  @laza6141  So you are confused about this conversation.
    1
  33. Never played Chrono Trigger or Ocarina of Time?
    1
  34.  @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
  35. Nigerian Space Force on the side LMAO
    1
  36.  @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
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @Dogbertforpresident  What's lol about that? rationality does not come from irrationality. Garbage in garbage out. Logic comes from a mind.
    1
  41. 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
  42. Don't forget alien technology could just as well be technology from civilizations past just several thousands of years or so ago.
    1
  43.  @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
  44. The sole purpose of life is to know the creator of life, Jesus who made you solely for that relationship.
    1
  45.  @StillAliveAndKicking_  Wasn't there something like that with dr octavia or whatever his name was from spiderman? lol
    1
  46. 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
  47. Agree, Chrono Trigger too.
    1
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50.  @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