Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "The Definitive Guide to Debunking Creationists Part 2: Abiogenesis" video.

  1. I am sure you can show me where that date is in the bible. Chapter and verse, please. ;-)
    3
  2.  @karstentopp  Ussher was an idiot. There is no date in the bible. They weren't even using a solar calendar back then, so there can't be. ;-)
    3
  3. Let's put it this way, it doesn't take much to have systems that satisfy reasonable criteria for life like the ability to reproduce and to adapt to environmental changes. Some of the classical criteria like "metabolism" are trivially dictated by thermodynamics anyway. Adaptation and, slightly more specific, homeostasis are basically already satisfied by something as trivial as a chemical buffer system, so it's not like we are defining life as something overly complex to begin with.
    2
  4.  @elormyaw6183  These are also the wrong definitions, because what is alive is not a human being or a tree. It takes the entire planet to form life and to sustain life and it takes the entire universe to make the planet. The true "requirements" are much, much more stringent than what the biologists are usually talking about. The universe is simply capable of high levels of local organization. Biological life is most likely just one of these emergent local phenomena.
    2
  5.  @diamondenchantmentx  The people who wrote the OT had no interest in the question "Where it all came from...?". They only had an interest in "Who is protecting us?". The OT is a political text in which religion is used to cause a cohesive tribal identity for the Jewish people. They key phrase is not "In the beginning... ", but "I am your god who brought you out of Egypt..." because the Jewish god differentiates the Jews from the Babylonians who believed in the Babylonian gods. The discussion about the scientific credibility of the Genesis account did not even exist until the 17th century, or so. It's a modern phenomenon that developed after the reformation.
    1
  6.  @karstentopp  I am sure you have evidence for that made up statement. Any day now, kid, any day now. ;-)
    1
  7. People don't know what plastics are and they have absolutely no clue that there is an entire class of plastics that are, strictly speaking, proteins or at least very protein-like materials while other natural materials like cellulose are also polymers of a different makeup. You can basically reduce the entire "problem" to a lack of education.
    1
  8.  @kujojotarostandoceanman2641  It has been around for a long time. They used to call it "the Gaia theory". I wasn't much of a fan of it because it sounded like new age nonsense, but if you really think about it, no species can survive without a very large number of other interconnected species. Even the most primitive life relies on a chemical or physical energy source that is provided by abiotic processes (like fusion in the sun) and different chemical sources (and sinks for waste products). So, yeah, life is one of those phenomena for which the usual divide-and-conquer strategy of science only gets us so far. It is a complex emergent phenomenon and we have to learn to analyze its complexities.
    1
  9. Which god? We invented so many of them. ;-)
    1
  10. There is no belief in science. In science you either know the facts or you don't.
    1