Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "TED-Ed" channel.

@ScorpionClaws789 You seem to be struggling to grasp the concept of what "information" is and it's implications. This should help. Dr Werner Gitt wiki intro"Werner Gitt (born 22 February 1937) is a German engineer and young earth creationist. Before retirement, he was Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt." No information can exist without a code. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics. No information can exist in purely statistical processes. No information can exist without a transmitter. No information chain can exist without a mental origin. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity. No information can exist without a will. Let me spell it out for you. There is no known natural law, physical process or material phenomenon that can give rise to information. Both origin of life and Darwinian evolution's functionality are predicated on an non-existant mechanism.
1
@HerMi.T Evolution doesn't work period. It cannot account for much of what humans are and life is. The immaterial concept of information all life is described from is one of the big issues. Naturalistic process cannot produce information. It always requires a mental origin in the chain.
1
Moses never stopped the locusts. He said God was bringing them. That's the opposite.
1
@Qwee-ct9zo Science literally tells us eyes never evolved and could not have. This video is very dishonest.
1
Ok so you catch them? They need to be processed extremely fast or they rot. It's not practical.
1
"The genes you don't get from your parents." mRNA vaccine says hello.
1
@brunodelconte The multiverse is theoretical, nor does it have any explanatory power. Rationality cannot come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Infinite probability cannot produce infinite possibility. Let me put it this way you can have a random number generator going for infinity, it's still not going to produce code, far less one DNA of one species that has existed in earths history. Natural process cannot produce an immaterial concept such as information which is found in DNA.
1
More reliable documentation too.
1
@treysalisbury7277 "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
1
They aren't eating rocks. They are eating dead coral skeletons which new coral and seaweed grow on. Coral skeletons aren't rock, it's like a clam shell it's basically bone. Not rock. So the title is completely clickbait.
1
"How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
1
@ArcaneShadowEssence Wow you are beyond cringe worthy. I've seen it all. I can see why there are so many shootings in the USA if people act as absurd as you. You are literally devolving civilization. Your name says it all, you are probably some wiccan who dances skyclad in a trace in the middle of the night outside singing out of tune to the "spirits" to bring you a brain. Logic and reason clearly aren't your strong suit.
1
you don't need a flu shot every year they are a scam lol
1
lol got to throw in that carbon bs at the end. Ya the swarms are caused by your car and plastic bags. Feel the guilt Westerner it's all your fault. We are all sick of this absurd narrative. Stop.
1
@Tijaxtolan It is special in that it's the only source for much of the historical record it contains. And it's statements of science. You must not know the big bang theory is wholly derived from the biblical record. Nothing else anywhere in human history remotely came close to being accurate. The Exodus was also found and published around a decade ago which is relevant to this video.
1
@ZennExile Based on what? We see in the bible they were still consuming insects in the New Testament. Locust more specifically, the exact species likely mentioned in this video! Your little theory is what is delusional.
1
@DerickMasai The issue most people have is it's clear we have changed the planet with increasing CO2 which is a good thing, especially for plant growth, crop production and greening the planet. The issue is the "global warming" part. That is the key important part to be worried about. An increase of 2C globally will indeed trigger the ice age cycle again and we are kinda screwed then. Not the mini ones we have had but the big daddy one that has been sleeping for the last 10 000 years and has long been due to start up again. The point is how can we trust the accuracy of the temperature models? We really can't at this point the science isn't good enough. It's a very important subject. But the impact of humanity is what is unknown. We also have solar cycles to factor in which change global climate. There are just too many unknowns to be pointing the finger at humans and that the temp will keep going up and because of us. Or is it going up not because of us, or is it and we can't do anything at this point to stop it so any efforts are futile for all intents and purposes. The point is it's all speculation, what upsets people is this speculation on either which way is stated as fact. And then these people mix it with actual science such as the 2C increase then claim people are science deniers. It's absurd lol. Total bait and switch.
1
@ipiinsih3655 About a decade ago a Atheist head of archeology of a university in Israel discovered and published the whole Exodus path with dozens of sites. There is a video with him in person showing and explaining many of these sites. He became a Christian after this massive discovery. I'm shocked at how little people know about this and the lack of media coverage.
1
@rainbowmothraleo The biblical text however does not lend itself to myth as its history has continually established repeatedly. The track record of the biblical narrative is amazing in this regard. Dr Adam Zertal chairman of the department of archeology of Haifa in Israel discovered the Exodus and published it if you want to look into this specific topic more.
1
"How did eyes evolve?" You shouldn't state something as established proven science when it's actually just conjecture. Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion.
1
plastics just go in landfills and get mumified with the rest of waste and not broken down. So there is zero difference. Asian and African countries with no waste management infrastructure and dumping into the ocean is largely the big relevant issue. Why don't you frame the plastic waste issue like that? It's disingenuous not to. This isn't an issue for the West.
1
Make better titles and videos. You literally wasted 80% of the video peddling your climate worldview instead of talking about the 1 minute of content about the "new material." This is quite a deceptive practice to engage in.
1
"How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
1
@-baritbryll In other words weather...
1
Why? CO2 destroying the planet is bs. It's only being peddled to steal money on a wide scale for a "carbon tax" that does nothing.
1
@Lewiigi How about doing your research on when eye structures show up in the fossil record and you would instantly see how absurd the conjecture evolution brought about eyes is. Far less stating for a fact it did which is dishonest.
1
@Lewiigi While evolutionary scenarios, as opposed to worked-out theories, exist for hypothesizing how new genera, new orders, and new families of animal life might appear, there is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear. 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. Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?,” BioScience 58 (October 2008): 855, doi:10.1641/B580912. Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist 32 (February 1992): 131, doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.123. Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” BioEssays 31 (July 2009): 737, doi:10.1002/bies.200900033.
1
@Lewiigi I never presented anything because it's irrelevant. Refuting one theory doesn't require another to fill the void.
1
"The genes you don't get from your parents." mRNA vaccine says hello.
1
@Tawknmysht yet they ignore "their" science has shown us the creation of the universe, the structure of the universe, and life (based on information, DNA} all require a mind, aka intelligent personal God. There is no naturalistic origin on any of these three things, even when invoking infinite probability. Yet they peddle scientifically nonsensical notions such as Darwinian evolution that isn't even a functional theory and it's greatest evidence which is speciation is wholly absent from the fossil record. They are hypocrites.
1
Seems like a massive waste of time to try to solve it. So the time investment doesn't seem proportional to the personal reward of saying wow I solved the riddle imo.
1
How are pharyngeal jaws "evolved" when they show up in a geological instant in the fossil record just like virtually every form of eye and skeletal structure in the Cambrian? The word "evolved" and "evolution" is one of the most abused words lol. Just say "evolve" and you can do away with any explanation needed.
1
Evolution can't be explained away with time. The logistics alone make it impossible. Secondly rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Darwinian evolution by it's very nature is pseudo science.
1
"How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
1
Exactly it would not be the same person it is a copy. We literally don't even know what the human mind is yet. We barely even know what a thought is, far less how it's formed.
1
Quite a lot of conjecture. In fact i would go far enough to call most of it fantasy.
1
Wood can also rot. One pipe drip or something alike near one of the support columns and that might be an issue.
1
It's actually clickbait. They aren't eating rocks. They are eating dead coral skeletons which new coral and seaweed grow on. Coral skeletons aren't rock, it's like a clam shell it's basically bone. Not rock. So the title is completely clickbait.
1
I don't know if I would call 3% a large portion of our carbon or it being a crucial carbon sink just objectively. Cute video though.
1
@anticorncob6 You have to know what reality is in the first place hint hint.
1
@SB-kg6iw Correct, God. Logic requires it. With the advancement of science we now know biology life is based on an immaterial concept. Information, found in DNA. There is no known natural law, physical process or material phenomenon that can give rise to information. Both origin of life and Darwinian evolution's functionality are predicated on an non-existant mechanism. Darwinian evolution is pseudo-science, the flat earth of the 20/21st century. Darwinian evolution is a defunct theory, it failed Darwins own standards long ago. Just that evolutionary theory is not functional. Secondly the theory itself is not whole. The concept is fragmented. In other words it's not worked out.
1
@SB-kg6iw What?! No evolutionary theory is not highly supported far less even close to the most supported theory in biology, or the sciences in general. It does not even remotely underpin our understanding of biology, not by a long shot. It's explanatory power is almost zilch, it's failed so many times in what it should predict it's absurd it's still even mentioned in academia. The theory could cease to exist tomorrow and it would have had virtually no impact that's how insignificant it is. Now evolution is a 'fact?" That is quite the leap. I'm sorry but you haven't the vaguest clue about biology if you are stating evolution is a fact now or the scientific community has no doubts about the theory. It is essentially pseudo-science and not scientifically possible in the first place, but even further logically and logistically impossible. For evolution to exist far less bring about all life as we know it, it would literally have to be completely divinely guided at every step that is how non-functional the theory is. Intelligent design is a scientific model. The scientific argument is far greater and solid than naturalism. The ACTUAL "greatest most solidified knowledge" in science, the space time theorems establish the requirement for the first cause and implications of the big bang. Which(the big bang) I'm sure you don't know is wholly a Christian concept, from a Christian astronomer. Naturalism cannot account for the start of the universe, the structure of the universe, the start of life nor the structure of life. Intelligent design thus God science tells us is required for all of it. The multiverse and cyclical universe cannot solve this. You don't have an argument.
1
@SB-kg6iw Sounds like you should get your money back they lied to you. Evolutionary theory has virtually zero relevance to biology science far less the backbone or underpins it. I don't remember bringing "faith" or God of the gaps into anything I said into anything. I demonstrated the opposite the evidence science has produced points towards the requirement of God. That is not a gap. We see however in naturalism the gaps only widening not closing unlike in ID which points towards it's failure as a model. I stated objective reasoning and science. I stated the scientific model of intelligent design. . 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(God) beyond space and time. 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.Science has advanced to a point we know now life is based on an immaterial concept, information, found in DNA. There is no naturalistic phenomenon or process that can produce information. A mind is required. Life requires God. Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Christianity claims God created everything by the Word, the transfer of information. Naturalism by it's very nature is not a functional worldview. The science is not there and never will be. It is predicated on a non-existent mechanism. Secondly like I already pointed out evolutionary theory has consistently failed it's predictive model for what we have found with the advancement of science of the last hundred years. It's frankly absurd to even defend it at this point. The fossil record evidence alone shuts down the whole theory.
1