It doesn't matter what your qualifications are as long as your arguments are sound and rational with no fallacies. However if you are uneducated it is very unlikely that you will have rational arguments in the first place.
This guy sounds almost exactly like Kent Hovind right down to the smug appearance that he portrays as he totally believes the bullshit coming out of his mouth. It's ironic that the condescending tone they use suggests we're idiots if we believe in Evolution when Evolution is as firmly based on evidence as the shape of the Earth is. You just want to slap some sense into them.
“My name is Malaki King I’ve been speaking on creationism for four years I’ve been studying it for ten years. Makes sense to me; a design demands a designer.”
Why do so many creationists sound like Kent Hovind? where are they from?
@thepigofhappiness Funny you should mention that. In fact, many of his slides were literally Kent Hovind slides, and much of his presentation was verbatim from Hovind's seminars on tape. There was even a case where he told an anecdotal about a conversation 'he' had with a professor that was word for word identical from a story Hovind told in a seminar.
So basically his only qualification is he's a Human Just like the rest of us.
Same old story, been true since man started this religion stuff. Its all just primates trying to control and exploit other primates. Think long and hard, where do they really want the power, in the next life, or THIS ONE.
So basically his only qualification is hes a Human Just like the rest of us.
Same old story, been true since man started this religion stuff. Its all just primates trying to control and exploit other primates. Think long and hard, where do they really want the power, in the next life, or THIS ONE.
HAhaha that was funny stuff. Surely there must be a point where these dimwits realise that the fervor of their arguments does not match the scientists' validity. They are human after all. Are some people really that stupid... hmm perhaps brainwashed more to the point
If there were ever any creationists that DID understand science (before the arisal of modern science anyway) they would have examined the evidence and then swiftly given up their retarded beliefs. I would argue that the very existance of a creationist who understands modern science is a logical paradox. Which kind of brings to life the unfortunate truth that no amount of logic will ever get through the bulwark of ignorance that creationists build around their minds (but ill still keep trying)
This was brilliant. There's nothing funnier than reading the efoorts of those like Mr88 below. Watching a creationist grapple with science is like watching a blindfolded guy trying to catch a greased pig. They're like conspiracy theorists - they are fed a sound-bite like "DNA is coded - code implies intelligence - intelligence means a designer - a designer means God' and that, for them, is that. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - the operative phrase here being 'a little'.
@ScientificBob (QUOTE): "This would require the mind of god to have arisen from yet another intelligent source. And so on for an infinite amount of intelligent sources." (END QUOTE)
Think again. The 1st cause Intelligent Source would be the 1st (FIRST) cause Intelligent source. You are suggesting that there could have been a 1st cause intelligent source PRIOR TO the 1st cause intelligent source, and that's impossible. Your theory is illogical and can not be logically defended. Try again.
@Mr88playmaker You said: "Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source "
This means that all intelligence need some prior intelligence to exist. Your god is no exception to your own made up rules dude. Inserting the word "first" is exactly the special pleading fallacy I was talking about.
You're just asserting bullshit with nothing to back it up instead a made up argument of "first cause" and a special pleading fallacy.
@Mr88playmaker If it was first it would have no information at all. Nothing to base thoughts or imagination on, no matter no energy, nothing. So when you claim that a god is the first cause you are saying god is a nonthinking, unintelligent ,mass-less void of nothingness. And according to string theory and the discovery of quantum fluctuations you would be right. Congratulations, you have just disproved your own idea of an intelligent creator.
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "This would require the mind of god to have arisen from yet another intelligent source. And so on for an infinite amount of intelligent sources." (END QUOTE)
Re-read your own post slowly, pay attention, and you'll notice your statement is completely illogical. I recommend check out my 'fave videos' lists and watch "Logic 101" after I tell you the following.
Here goes:
The 1st cause Intelligent Source = the 1st (notice: first as in FIRST) Cause Intelligent Source.
@Mr88playmaker You are just making assertions. It's not the "first" cause just because you said so. You need to demonstrate why it is first. And you fail. It's a special pleading fallacy.
And you are wrong. Causality works because time exists. You have a cause and then, AFTERWARDS, you have an effect. The dimension of time MUST exists for causality to take place. At the moment of the big bang, time did NOT exist. There could not possibly have been a cause of the big bang as a result.
@Mr88playmaker "Time and space came into being at the "Singularity" Actually, that's wrong. The time dimension came into with the big bang. "prior" to the big bang, there was no time. And I put 'prior' between quotes, because essentially it's irrational to talk about "before" time.
"There is no thing as an effect without a cause" In the universe as we know it. At Planck time, it's no longer a universe as we know it.
@Mr88playmaker ""A creation does not precede its creator" Loaded statement. You assume there is a purposefull creation in the first place. Secondly, if that is a "universal" rule that you wish to install, then your 'creator' is also subject to it. You may begin your special pleading fallacy now.
Third, cause/effect as we now it is impossible at the time of the big bang, since causality needs time to take place, and the time dimension didn't exist yet.
The Singularity is the point at which all matter, energy, space and time (everything) came into existence. Time and matter had a beginning. We can now literally look into deep space and see it happening.
What this means is that the CAUSE of time and matter precedes time and matter: for a creation can not, and does not precede its creator.
The universe had a beginning AND it is NOT evolving in an upward motion but winding DOWN and burning out. Time has a beginning and end.
@Mr88playmaker "We can now literally look into deep space and see it happening." No, we cannot. You clearly know nothing about astronomy.
"What this means is that the CAUSE of time and matter precedes time and matter:" This is retarded. CAUSALITY NEEDS TIME TO BE POSSIBLE. And nothing can "preceed" time, that's yet another irrational statement.
Furthermore, the universe's "heat death" has nothing to do with Time, dumbass.
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "It's not the "first" cause just because you said so." (END QUOTE)
Let's then suppose that the 1st Cause of the universe (that created time and space) is not the 1st cause but rather the 2nd or 3rd or 4th cause of the universe (that created time and space).
Now, stop and think: You have skipped over the 1st cause and, in so doing, you have failed to acknowledge the irrefutable fact that absolutely no 2nd or 3rd cause is possible without their being a 1st cause.
@Mr88playmaker You continue to make the same fallacy over and over again, even after people allready pointed it out to you, why is that?
One last time:
Time didn't exist at the moment of the big bang. Causality needs time to be possible: FIRST a cause and AFTERWARDS an effect. Therefor, the big bang CAN NOT have a cause in this sense. Time was not available, so sequential events are an absolute impossibility. Only honest answer at this point: we don't know. PERIOD.
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "Time didn't exist at the moment of the big bang." (END QUOTE)
If by "the big bang" you are referring to what Cosmologists call "The Singularity" (the point at which time and matter, and physical space itself came into being) than you are missing something. Think again, and think deeply, only this time remember that that the universe consists of FOUR dimensions and you can not account for the fourth. Which one are you missing? The universe can not exist without it.
@Mr88playmaker Big bang is the expansion of space-time. Time came into existance the moment the expansion started. "the singularity" is only hypothesis. Truth is that we don't know what happened before Planck time. Our models of physics break down at that point (and the law of causality is part of that model!!!). We need a unified theory of physics for further anwers. Until then: WE DON'T KNOW.
ps: to be correct, the universe consists of at LEAST 4 dimensions.
@Mr88playmaker You don't advance your argument given that nothing that you wrote underpins the case for a God. Specifically because it is complex and sophisticated, a 'mind' doesn't spontaneously come into existence from nothing. It took Earth 4.5 billion years to come up with one, and language is a few thousand years old at best. Yet God - the most complex thing ever - came into existence from nowhere, nothing, darkness and timelessness both fully formed and perfect.
@Mr88playmaker I get your point and no deep thinking is required. I just disagree with what you are implying about the connection between DNA and God, consciousness and God, language and God, the Universe and God and God's independence as an entity from the evolutionary process.
You're a polite debater, though, so please don't infer any sarcasm from my side of the fence.
(A) Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(B) DNA code is symbolic INFORMATION like computer software & cell are computers.
(C) Even if humans had NEVER discovered DNA code: DNA code creates and governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
@Mr88playmaker b) no, it is not. It's a molecule that triggers chemical reactions.
c) again wrong. same as b. It's just a molecule. A weird molecule for sure, but a molecule nonetheless. And we even know how it changes over generations. No supernatural mumbo jumbo needed for that.
d) true. But dna is not that kind of information. It's just a molecule.
The symbolic information contained in DNA is neither matter nor energy. Information is not molecules.
EXAMPLE: The information I am giving you is NOT your glass computer screen. Your screen is a MEDIUM that is made up of matter (molecules) but said computer screen is NOT the INFORMATION itself.
If you can think deep, you will come to the startling realization that the information within a book is NOT ink and paper (molecules). Information transcends its medium.
@Mr88playmaker There is no symbolic information in dna by any defenition. It's just a molecule.
"If you can think deep, you will come to the startling realization that the information within a book is NOT ink and paper (molecules). Information transcends its medium"
True. But the ink and paper only becomes information if there is someone able to read it. Nobody is reading DNA. It's just a molecule behaving in a certain way with certain properties. There is no "interpreter".
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "Nobody is reading DNA. It's just a molecule behaving in a certain way with certain properties. There is no "interpreter"." (END QUOTE)
Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
With NO person interpreting, DNA code creates & governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
@Mr88playmaker "Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols."
And that is exactly the type of information DNA can NOT be. There is no encoder and there is no decoder. There is only an organic molecule and chemistry.
@Mr88playmaker "DNA code creates & governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols"
This doesn't make any sense. So... dna is the code, the information, the encoder AND the decoder at the same time?
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "This doesn't make any sense. So... dna is the code, the information, the encoder AND the decoder at the same time?" (END QUOTE)
Darwin ignorantly thought that the cell was a simple blob of goo but 100 yrs later, Modern science discovered DNA! Genetic code works like computer SOFTWARE and the cell works like a COMPUTER. You have within you the most sophisticated information computing system in the entire known universe. There are people now designing DNA run computers.
@Mr88playmaker I have no idea why you are bringin Darwin into a discussion about DNA, a molecule of which the existance was UNKOWN while he was alive (didn't stop Darwin from predicting it's existance though).
Secondly, who gives a shit about Darwin anyway? Biology has come a long way since then and his views are OUTDATED. Welcome in the 21st fucking century.
@Mr88playmaker "Genetic code works like computer SOFTWARE and the cell works like a COMPUTER" I'm a computer scientist and software engineer. Incidently, I use genetic algoritms in one of my products. To equate life with computers is asanine.
Please don't talk about DNA computing, because you clearly have no idea at all what that is all about. Secondly, we use NATURAL phenomena ALL THE TIME to build technology. Where do you think aerodynamics come from?
haha! You keep trying to redefine what I say. You just told me (quote) "Please don't talk about DNA computing" (End quote). What part of the following makes you so uncomfortable that you have to reword it? Here we go once more now; pay attention: DNA code works like computer software and CELLS compute genetic information.
@Mr88playmaker ps: being able to draw analogy proves nothing at all.
Besides, we KNOW how DNA works and forms. We KNOW for a FACT that DNA mutates and accumulates those changes through generations, filtered by a NATURAL selection process. This mechanism is NOT guided by some abstract invisible magic jew. It is a BLIND and NATURAL phenomena.
This very concept is abstracted into "genetic algoritms" LOOK IT UP. My software evolves business processes. BLINDLY and UNGUIDED.
@Mr88playmaker Just because I know that you won't look it up:
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural evolution. This heuristic is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.
@Mr88playmaker The process that shapes the genetic "information" is the algoritm, you dumbass. Not the genetics themselves.
The natural phenomena that shapes DNA: evolution. That is what the algoritm is. And if you would have looked up the terms like I asked you, you would have known this. If you would have read my post with your brain turned on instead of off, you would have known this.
You are making yourself look like a dishonest jackass.
@Mr88playmaker "You have within you the most sophisticated information computing system in the entire known universe" Funny. Is that why 1 in 3 people get cancer?
Furthermore, pc's don't mutate, reproduce and die.
ps: the most sophisticated computer will be the quantum pc, not DNA computing.
Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
If Einstein is wrong, and code is matter, prove it and win the Nobel prize.
@Mr88playmaker "It is clear to me that you are simply confusing INFORMATION with MEDIUM." it's clear to me that you are just repeating fallacious bullshit you pulled from some creationtard website.
"Info is NOT matter"
Indeed. But DNA is. It's a molecule. Nobody is reading or interpreting the molecule. It's JUST a molecule, behaving in a specific way (just like all molecules behave in a specific way).
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "But DNA is. It's a molecule. Nobody is reading or interpreting the molecule. It's JUST a molecule, behaving in a specific way (just like all molecules behave in a specific way). " (END QUOTE)
DNA is not your "ordinary" molecule. DNA is literally encoded with symbolic information (that works like a computer software program) that writes your body parts/systems/machines etc. and governs it all. The molecule is encoded with instructions that run the whole show.
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "This is false. Learn some biology." (END QUOTE)
You (ScientificBob) assert that the DNA molecule is NOT encoded with information.
You (ScientificBob) assert that if in fact genetic code exists (and you don't believe it does) than it is not information but matter (just a molecule).
Have you not stopped to notice that there is nothing scientific about your assertions?
@Mr88playmaker "You assert that the DNA molecule is NOT encoded with information" What an oxymorron. I'm not asserting anything and most certainly not a negative statement. YOU are asserting that DNA IS some kind of code. I'm just calling DNA what it actually is: a molecule.
"Have you not stopped to notice that there is nothing scientific about your assertions" YOU are making claims here about DNA. Not me.
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "it is not. It's a molecule that triggers chemical reactions" (END QUOTE)
Genetic code works like CAD computer software. Any and all code can be placed on disk or in a printed book etc. and the information remains the same. Computer code triggers reactions (as you say) and these reactions are the result of ACTIONS (commands) represented in the way of symbolic information.
Genetic information -in the way of genetic code-- writes and governs all-things-biological.
@Mr88playmaker You keep repeating that dna is "symbolic information" and I keep repeating that it isn't. I'm growing tired of this "yes/no" game.
"PROOF of this is that biochemists store the same genetic information within man-made computers and the information remains unaltered" Wrong. What they do is store the molecular structure of the molecule.
Also, no matter how you choose to look at DNA, this doesn't change ANYTING about evolution theory.
(A) Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(B) DNA code is symbolic INFORMATION like computer software & cell are computers.
(C) Even if humans had NEVER discovered DNA code: DNA code creates and governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "You keep repeating that dna is "symbolic information" and I keep repeating that it isn't. " (END QUOTE)
You are not paying attention. Re-read my posts & you'll be alarmed to notice that every time I say "symbolic information" or "genetic code" YOU THINK I am calling a "molecule" symbolic information or genetic code. But THAT is YOUR own mind playing tricks on you because YOU (alone) mistakenly EQUATE the DNA molecule with DNA code. When I say "code" you REPLY "molecule"
@Mr88playmaker Well ... yes. DNA IS a molecule. It's not a code. Nore does it possess a code. It's a molecule behaving in a certain way and has certain properties - just like all other molecules.
You can repeat your unverifiable bullshit till the cows come home, it won't make it usefull or correct.
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "it is not. It's a molecule that triggers chemical reactions" (END QUOTE)
You have it backwards.
Example:
The genetic information command / codon "GGG" is the DNA code command that essentially says "Let there be Glycine" (chemical) and behold, there is a chemical written into being by symbolic information (i.e. LOGOS).
DNA presents a serious problem for materialists who based their theories on the antiquated presumption that chemicals are the starting point of life.
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "And we even know how it changes over generations" (END QUOTE)
Here's what we know about information: Information can only increase via intelligent input from a MIND (RULE: knowledge or intelligence only arises from a mind).
As I've said, a bacteria TODAY can only contain an EQUAL or LESS amount of information than did a bacteria an infinite gazillion years ago but NOT one iota MORE.
Evolution is DEAD. Darwin did not know about the information properties of DNA.
@Mr88playmaker "Information can only increase via intelligent input from a MIND" Mutation is random, fuckface.
It's not intelligent, it's blind. It's a replication error that sometimes ends up having a positive effect. Please point out this "mind" you speak off in biological mutations. Put up, or shut up.
@Mr88playmaker "Darwin did not know about the information properties of DNA" Darwin predicted the existance of a hereditary systems that allows for passing on changes to the next generation in an accumulative way.
EXACTLY WHAT DNA TURNED OUT TO BE.
To deny this, is to deny that paternal testing can tell you who your biological father is.
@Mr88playmaker I have a medical degree so fully appreciate the wonderful intricacies associated with how DNA and RNA go about their business within the cell. None of what I see reveals a God to me, though. You're presenting your case as though it's QED. Not for me. I think you're interpreting patterns begat of a thousand million years of trial, error and refinement as explicable only by - effectively - magic.
Out of interest, the source/genesis/evolution of your creator is...?
There is nothing "magical" about the proven fact that biological life forms are written /created and governed by symbolic information, and that symbolic information is neither matter nor energy. DNA has completely destroyed the fraudulent materialist theory that so many kids (such as yourself) were taught in school. Evolution theory can not survive the modern science of the digital information age. Evolution is junk science. The serious sciences have zero respect for it.
@Mr88playmaker Serious sciences have zero respect for evolution, preferring instead to look at patterns in biology and assign their origin to a creator. That, I am positive, would be news to any serious scientist anywhere who wasn't already predisposed/conditioned to seek out God's fingerprints. DNA and its MO is very much a question of matter and energy. Saying that the information coded for by the mass of AGTC combinations is neither doesn't make a case for saying that it's all down to a God.
@colin5577 (QUOTE) "Saying that the information coded for by the mass of AGTC combinations is neither doesn't make a case for saying that it's all down to a God." (END QUOTE)
If you rename / relabel A,G,T,C as: 1,2,3,4 or let's even say you assign them the names "Jim, Bob, Mary, Ted" nothing changes. The code command sequences will write the matter (everything in your body) and govern it.
Darwin lived in the time of Lincoln. He had NO idea that lifeforms are designed & written into being.
@colin5577 (QUOTE) "DNA and its MO is very much a question of matter and energy." (END QUOTE)
That's incorrect. YOU personally and mistakenly maintain that symbolic information is made of matter and energy but your theory contradicts all observable, testable and verifiable evidence.
The truth is: Symbolic information is neither matter nor energy.
Information AND code ( language ) only arise out of thought / reason / MIND i.e. Nous /LOGOS.
@Mr88playmaker Fair enough. This could go on forever. You're saying that, billions of years' worth of trial and error bedamned, the present complexity/variety of expression resultant from deoxyribonucleic acid replication is clear and irrefutable proof of a God because it's expression is a code thus a language thus from God. Further, it may be made up of sugars etc, but forget chemistry/biology - DNA is more than the sum of its parts. No accidents - just design.
@colin5577 (QUOTE) "Serious sciences have zero respect for evolution, preferring instead to look at patterns in biology and assign their origin to a creator." (END QUOTE)
"Patterns" of what? Information and language? You pretty much walked right into that one.
But you see my point now? The patterns on your sofa cushions only represent THEMSELVES. They are NOT a bio-computer software program that writes doggies and cats and horse and people into being.
@colin5577 (QUOTE) "I have a medical degree so fully appreciate the wonderful intricacies associated with how DNA and RNA go about their business within the cell." (END QUOTE)
The people decoding DNA and RNA information are not "medical" doctors. They are cryptographers. The reason that Cryptographers /code-cracking language experts (AND computer programmers) are the guys enlisted to crack and explain genetic information to geneticists / biochemists is because code is language not matter.
Symbolic information is neither matter nor energy.
Matter does not bestow meaning to symbols. Only a mind can do that.
For this reason, even the great Greek SECULAR (non religious) philosophers began all things logic upon the required foundation that "in the beginning" there was Nous Logos i.e. the MIND of the Creator and LANGUAGE. Language and thought are inseparable. All symbolic information arises from a thought.
DNA has made deists or theists out of skeptics & atheists.
Time and space do not exist absent of themselves (i.e. time and space do not exist if time and space do not exist. See laws of logic.
The Singularity (Big Bang) marks the beginning of time & space. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. We know that the universe began to exist & therefore has a cause. Time and space did not exist prior to The Singularity (Big Bang) while the Cause of the Singularity (Big bang) DID.
In defense of English: science is the discipline by which we interpret the natural world. We discover the best way of understanding data (synthesize it into theories). Literary study is one of the three disciplines by which we interpret texts (with theology and law). The principles learned in an English degree can be applied to the natural world, for we can see the natural world as a "text". Thus, it is not the case that someone with an English degree is necessarily unable to do science.
I've been studying Pastafarianism for 15 years, Pastafarian biology for the past 6 years and I'm a bartender at Applebee's. Let's get drunk and debate the existence of the FSM.
Why are we still wasting time with these buffoons?! It's funny how, just by stating their credentials, makes the scientist win and the ID guy look like the truly deluded loony that he is.
Could you please give some examples of mutations that add new information? Too, a tangible example of criterially valid information arising from non-intelligence of some kind.
ManKIND has ALWAYS been ManKIND as we know it today. What DNA shows is that billions and billions and billions of years ago, the same amount of information had to exist in a human cell as today. It shuts down Darwinian Evolution theory at its roots and shatters the whole crazy idea that people evolved from animals. Darwin lived in the time of Abraham Lincoln way before anyone had any idea about what a cell is. It turns out that a cell works like a computer and runs on Information and language.
Ever since Darwin, the evidence for evolution has only increased, and the scientific consensus that evolution happened has only gotten stronger. Why do you creationists always speak of this subject authoritatively when you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Why do you evolutionists always speak of this subject authoritatively when you don't know the difference between fact and theory? Anyway, this is not a scientific debate. Science has as much to do with this as Chuck Norris has to do with The Banana Splits. It''s an endless argument between Christianity and Atheism over who's right.
The Truth: Both sides are fucking idiots for trying to make science out of religion and religion out of science.
The only thing you said that was right is that this isn't a scientific debate (unless pro-science vs. anti-science can be considered as a scientific debate).
We know the difference between fact and theory. Not sure where you got the idea that we don't.
Evolution isn't an atheist theory. Creationists wish to label it as atheist, and you obviously fell for it.
Finally, we "evolutionists" aren't idiots, unless siding with the scientists on SCIENCE is idiotic, but only idiots think that.
(Quote): Dinoasuars to people is a weird conspiracy theory, with no basis in actual science. " (end quote)
You're wrong.
Check this out: Evolution VIDEO (DISCOVERY Channel educational series): Asserts that fish turned into dinosaurs, and dinosaurs turned into people. This is the FOUNDATION for Evolution. It is based on ZERO science.
watch?v=5W763lQR0tU
Re: our so called "origins" check this out. It is taught in all the school books: Monkeys turning into people!
The Evolutionists teach that humans evolved from dinosaurs. Watch the evolution educational video at the link I showed you the link to. It's what is taught in our schools; that mice turned into dinosaurs and then dinosaurs turned into people. It's a fairy tale. What biology shows is that there is NO such thing as General Evolution. What that means is that there is no such thing as one KIND turning into another KIND. Humans have always been humans and animals have always been animals.
What state are you in? That is a known fact to happen. Humans ARE animals. That is not taught in any school, I know it isn't becasuse I'm in school and know that not to be what happened. We evolved from other homo speices. Who came from the austrolopithicines. Dinosaurs where the ancestors of birds not man.
I'm also not letting you get off easy with anything here. You haver no idea what your talking about and I'll point that out. What is a kind? Creationists have never defined it and never will. Humans are known to have came from other animals and that is a well known fact. But dinosaurs are reptiles that evoled around the same time as mammals, we came from mammal like reptiles. Biology is based almost entirely off of what you call general evolution. There is NO I repeat NO evidence against it.
So, in order to show me an error, instead of showing me something peer reviewed, or at least researched, you link me to something that begins with "Evillution." Can you hear me laughing?
While listening to the second guy talk about the things he's studying, it just hit me how ridiculous it is that creationists have convinced themselves that scientists are nothing but god-hating atheists who make it their life's work trying to disprove stupid bible tales.
The arrogance of these people.
Most scientists ignore this "debate" and creationism, because unlike creationists, they're actually busy contributing to the increase of mankind's knowledge, which extends FAR beyond this issue.
Notice how the creationist uses every opportunity to claim "proof of God's existence" as to downplay the fact that he clearly has no real qualifications.
He sounds an awful lot like another certain somebody with fake credentials, spouting bullshit about evolution being a lie and dinosaurs living with humans.
The serious sciences regard Darwinian Evolution as pure nonsense. In every scientific field, everyone who has proposed any viable foundational model for a hypothesis or a theory has the math to back it up EXCEPT for Darwinists! The serious sciences scoff at Darwinian Evolution because it has ZERO math to back its claims. ZERO as in zilch, nada, NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. The serious sciences have waited forever for General Evolution to go away so that science can be respectable again.
Actually, your assertion about mutations is factually incorrect. The vast majority of mutations are neutral, not negative. Go read a book or something.
And you're still all bent out of shape over information. For example, you said, "Information arises out of a mind." While that may be true, it is not mutually true. Information may arise out of a mind, but not all information has to arise out of a mind. Therefor, your whole argument falls apart.
@Mr88playmaker Man, you're still replying to a comment I made 7 months ago. Unreal. Random mutations generator? What are you talking about? I told you before, you should go read a book or something. The average person has a few dozen mutations. Yet a small proportion of people have ill effects from these mutations. Ergo, most mutations are either neutral, or beneficial. I'd also argue that few are beneficial, but that is more difficult to positively prove.
@HelixTheThinker (QUOTE): "Man, you're still replying to a comment I made 7 months ago. " (END QUOTE) I don't live on this web site. I have a life. I can go for months without checking my youtube mailbox to find old messages like yours. There is a world out there beyond the Internet.
Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
If Einstein is wrong, and code is matter, prove it and
Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence. Information is neither matter nor energy. Information originates from a mind.
Mutations are like typeos. They do not constitute as information, neither can they add information to the genome.
To SEE for yourself whether mutations are "negatives", "neutrals" or "positives," try a random mutations generator for proof, and you will find that mutations are always NEGATIVES.
(1) A positive would ADD info.
(2) A neutral would not alter the info (info would remain the same)
The mutation in your arteries is neither information nor langauge. It's a freaking mutation. It's matter. Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
Dinosaurs do not turn into people and they never have. You've been reading too much Darwin and viewing too many fraudulent 19th Century drawings of rats turning into folks billions of years ago. It never happened. DNA proves Darwinian evolution is a hoax.
Uh, considering the mutation is written within my genetic code, it has a basis within information. Language, no, but information, yes. Are you simply not aware of what information is outside of "Herp derp?"
*Sigh* Dinoasuars to people is a weird conspiracy theory, with no basis in actual science. DNA shows evolution to be correct as it *Gasp* changes phenotypes and genotypes.
Animals utilize low level communication signals but are incapable of authoring an alphabet or coding system, assigning meaning to it, much less writing sophisticated digital computer programs as it were. The only langauge known to man is (1) that of human mind origin, and (2) DNA code.
DNA works like a computer program only far more sophisticated than any program ever written or even dreamed of by man.
Whales utilize low level communication, not language. Also, the low level communication of whales originates in a mind. Yes, all language originates in a mind but whales did not write DNA code. It had to have been another mind, as whales are themselves a product of said language and information (ie code).
ya but to understand amino acids, atoms are just atoms, atoms alone do not understand that they are atoms, they have to form into a brain and the only known self aware brain in the world is the human one.
what fucking scale, when whales use syntax, Idiosyncrasy, and write music variegating octaves then whales then you can claim whale language is more complex then human....
If I remember it was about how many uses one sound was had and how they were able to use it as often as they did. It's been a while since i read about it so if there's newer evidence out there, feel free.
Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
If Einstein is wrong, and code is matter, prove it and win the Nobel prize.
It doesn't matter what your qualifications are as long as your arguments are sound and rational with no fallacies. However if you are uneducated it is very unlikely that you will have rational arguments in the first place.
qvnsq101 1 month ago
Creationist Fail
redelman43199 3 months ago
Science and education will always crush myths and delution.
AmosTheTalented 6 months ago
Bit of a mis-match don't you think? ha
narco73 8 months ago
This guy sounds almost exactly like Kent Hovind right down to the smug appearance that he portrays as he totally believes the bullshit coming out of his mouth. It's ironic that the condescending tone they use suggests we're idiots if we believe in Evolution when Evolution is as firmly based on evidence as the shape of the Earth is. You just want to slap some sense into them.
warren52nz 11 months ago
"Our language, and our writing, are clearly examples that we were designed and not evolved"... Does he not understand that:
There is more than one language?
The English language 'evolved' from a combination of multiple others?
Or.. that the English language is still 'evolving'?
adamfawcett 11 months ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
“My name is Malaki King I’ve been speaking on creationism for four years I’ve been studying it for ten years. Makes sense to me; a design demands a designer.”
Why do so many creationists sound like Kent Hovind? where are they from?
thepigofhappiness 1 year ago 3
@thepigofhappiness Funny you should mention that. In fact, many of his slides were literally Kent Hovind slides, and much of his presentation was verbatim from Hovind's seminars on tape. There was even a case where he told an anecdotal about a conversation 'he' had with a professor that was word for word identical from a story Hovind told in a seminar.
HelixTheThinker 11 months ago 2
@HelixTheThinker
Yea i was thinking the same thing. They all sound like Kent hovind. Same tone of voice too. Bunch of brainwashed pieces of crap.
desiachar 9 months ago
"I have a PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech"
Mapariensis 1 year ago
Haha, pwned before the debate even started
Grendelwasright 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So basically his only qualification is he's a Human Just like the rest of us.
Same old story, been true since man started this religion stuff. Its all just primates trying to control and exploit other primates. Think long and hard, where do they really want the power, in the next life, or THIS ONE.
pac6010 1 year ago
So basically his only qualification is hes a Human Just like the rest of us.
Same old story, been true since man started this religion stuff. Its all just primates trying to control and exploit other primates. Think long and hard, where do they really want the power, in the next life, or THIS ONE.
pac6010 1 year ago
HAhaha that was funny stuff. Surely there must be a point where these dimwits realise that the fervor of their arguments does not match the scientists' validity. They are human after all. Are some people really that stupid... hmm perhaps brainwashed more to the point
Pigroota 1 year ago
WTF
reasonformirrors 1 year ago
If there were ever any creationists that DID understand science (before the arisal of modern science anyway) they would have examined the evidence and then swiftly given up their retarded beliefs. I would argue that the very existance of a creationist who understands modern science is a logical paradox. Which kind of brings to life the unfortunate truth that no amount of logic will ever get through the bulwark of ignorance that creationists build around their minds (but ill still keep trying)
Computernerd545 1 year ago
Fatality.
singring76 1 year ago
that was pretty funny
thexMechanic 1 year ago
" A design requires a designer"
Ummmmm........who said the world was designed?
Typical creationist logic, "The world is complex therefore it was designed, I don't need evidence to support my assumptions"'.
knobcheese22 1 year ago
any time you meet a creationist, it is 100% fact that they will always be either massively ignorant or massively closeminded and dishonest
blazereef 1 year ago
F*CKING PWNZERD!!!! Before the debate even began.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
Pwned.
richcoolerearth 1 year ago
Magic
jaca1 1 year ago
This was brilliant. There's nothing funnier than reading the efoorts of those like Mr88 below. Watching a creationist grapple with science is like watching a blindfolded guy trying to catch a greased pig. They're like conspiracy theorists - they are fed a sound-bite like "DNA is coded - code implies intelligence - intelligence means a designer - a designer means God' and that, for them, is that. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - the operative phrase here being 'a little'.
colin5577 1 year ago
There are only two options:
(1) Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source (the MIND of GOD)
(2) Intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.
To their embarrassment, Atheists are stuck with option no.2 ---- a
position that can NOT be logically or scientifically defended.
FUNNY but TRUE: Atheists maintain that logic arises out of
meaningless random chaos and is continually evolving via meaningless
random chaos.
Class dismissed.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker "Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source (the MIND of GOD)"
This would require the mind of god to have arisen from yet another intelligent source. And so on for an infinite amount of intelligent sources.
You may start your special pleading fallacy now.
ScientificBob 1 year ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE): "This would require the mind of god to have arisen from yet another intelligent source. And so on for an infinite amount of intelligent sources." (END QUOTE)
Think again. The 1st cause Intelligent Source would be the 1st (FIRST) cause Intelligent source. You are suggesting that there could have been a 1st cause intelligent source PRIOR TO the 1st cause intelligent source, and that's impossible. Your theory is illogical and can not be logically defended. Try again.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker You said: "Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source "
This means that all intelligence need some prior intelligence to exist. Your god is no exception to your own made up rules dude. Inserting the word "first" is exactly the special pleading fallacy I was talking about.
You're just asserting bullshit with nothing to back it up instead a made up argument of "first cause" and a special pleading fallacy.
Epic fail.
ScientificBob 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker If it was first it would have no information at all. Nothing to base thoughts or imagination on, no matter no energy, nothing. So when you claim that a god is the first cause you are saying god is a nonthinking, unintelligent ,mass-less void of nothingness. And according to string theory and the discovery of quantum fluctuations you would be right. Congratulations, you have just disproved your own idea of an intelligent creator.
alianchild 1 year ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "This would require the mind of god to have arisen from yet another intelligent source. And so on for an infinite amount of intelligent sources." (END QUOTE)
Re-read your own post slowly, pay attention, and you'll notice your statement is completely illogical. I recommend check out my 'fave videos' lists and watch "Logic 101" after I tell you the following.
Here goes:
The 1st cause Intelligent Source = the 1st (notice: first as in FIRST) Cause Intelligent Source.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker You are just making assertions. It's not the "first" cause just because you said so. You need to demonstrate why it is first. And you fail. It's a special pleading fallacy.
And you are wrong. Causality works because time exists. You have a cause and then, AFTERWARDS, you have an effect. The dimension of time MUST exists for causality to take place. At the moment of the big bang, time did NOT exist. There could not possibly have been a cause of the big bang as a result.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob
Time and space came into being at the "Singularity" see: Astronomy).
There is no thing as an effect without a cause.
A creation does not precede its creator.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mr88playmaker "Time and space came into being at the "Singularity" Actually, that's wrong. The time dimension came into with the big bang. "prior" to the big bang, there was no time. And I put 'prior' between quotes, because essentially it's irrational to talk about "before" time.
"There is no thing as an effect without a cause" In the universe as we know it. At Planck time, it's no longer a universe as we know it.
ScientificBob 10 months ago 2
@Mr88playmaker ""A creation does not precede its creator" Loaded statement. You assume there is a purposefull creation in the first place. Secondly, if that is a "universal" rule that you wish to install, then your 'creator' is also subject to it. You may begin your special pleading fallacy now.
Third, cause/effect as we now it is impossible at the time of the big bang, since causality needs time to take place, and the time dimension didn't exist yet.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@ScientificBob
The Singularity is the point at which all matter, energy, space and time (everything) came into existence. Time and matter had a beginning. We can now literally look into deep space and see it happening.
What this means is that the CAUSE of time and matter precedes time and matter: for a creation can not, and does not precede its creator.
The universe had a beginning AND it is NOT evolving in an upward motion but winding DOWN and burning out. Time has a beginning and end.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "We can now literally look into deep space and see it happening." No, we cannot. You clearly know nothing about astronomy.
"What this means is that the CAUSE of time and matter precedes time and matter:" This is retarded. CAUSALITY NEEDS TIME TO BE POSSIBLE. And nothing can "preceed" time, that's yet another irrational statement.
Furthermore, the universe's "heat death" has nothing to do with Time, dumbass.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "It's not the "first" cause just because you said so." (END QUOTE)
Let's then suppose that the 1st Cause of the universe (that created time and space) is not the 1st cause but rather the 2nd or 3rd or 4th cause of the universe (that created time and space).
Now, stop and think: You have skipped over the 1st cause and, in so doing, you have failed to acknowledge the irrefutable fact that absolutely no 2nd or 3rd cause is possible without their being a 1st cause.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker You continue to make the same fallacy over and over again, even after people allready pointed it out to you, why is that?
One last time:
Time didn't exist at the moment of the big bang. Causality needs time to be possible: FIRST a cause and AFTERWARDS an effect. Therefor, the big bang CAN NOT have a cause in this sense. Time was not available, so sequential events are an absolute impossibility. Only honest answer at this point: we don't know. PERIOD.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "Time didn't exist at the moment of the big bang." (END QUOTE)
If by "the big bang" you are referring to what Cosmologists call "The Singularity" (the point at which time and matter, and physical space itself came into being) than you are missing something. Think again, and think deeply, only this time remember that that the universe consists of FOUR dimensions and you can not account for the fourth. Which one are you missing? The universe can not exist without it.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Big bang is the expansion of space-time. Time came into existance the moment the expansion started. "the singularity" is only hypothesis. Truth is that we don't know what happened before Planck time. Our models of physics break down at that point (and the law of causality is part of that model!!!). We need a unified theory of physics for further anwers. Until then: WE DON'T KNOW.
ps: to be correct, the universe consists of at LEAST 4 dimensions.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mr88playmaker "Atheists maintain that logic arises out of meaningless random chaos and is continually evolving via meaningless random chaos"
The only thing atheism implies is the rejectiong of theism. Not the acceptance of other things. Only the rejection of theism.
ScientificBob 1 year ago
@colin5577
There are only two known languages in the universe:
(1) That of human mind origin (including all things spoken, written, coding etc.)
(2) DNA code
Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
Information invariably arises from an intelligent source i.e. a MIND.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker You don't advance your argument given that nothing that you wrote underpins the case for a God. Specifically because it is complex and sophisticated, a 'mind' doesn't spontaneously come into existence from nothing. It took Earth 4.5 billion years to come up with one, and language is a few thousand years old at best. Yet God - the most complex thing ever - came into existence from nowhere, nothing, darkness and timelessness both fully formed and perfect.
Makes no sense at all.
colin5577 10 months ago
@colin5577 (QUOTE) "and language is a few thousand years old at best. " (END QUOTE)
As I said, the only known language is:
(1) That of human mind origin -- (which you are saying it is a few thousand yrs old).
(2) DNA code -- (which writes/creates your biology and governs it; which I say preexisted human language).
Information arises from a MIND, and so does LANGUAGE.
DNA contains symbolic information i.e. language
Think deep and it will come to you.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker I get your point and no deep thinking is required. I just disagree with what you are implying about the connection between DNA and God, consciousness and God, language and God, the Universe and God and God's independence as an entity from the evolutionary process.
You're a polite debater, though, so please don't infer any sarcasm from my side of the fence.
colin5577 10 months ago
@colin5577
(A) Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(B) DNA code is symbolic INFORMATION like computer software & cell are computers.
(C) Even if humans had NEVER discovered DNA code: DNA code creates and governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(D) INFORMATION arises from a MIND.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker b) no, it is not. It's a molecule that triggers chemical reactions.
c) again wrong. same as b. It's just a molecule. A weird molecule for sure, but a molecule nonetheless. And we even know how it changes over generations. No supernatural mumbo jumbo needed for that.
d) true. But dna is not that kind of information. It's just a molecule.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob
The symbolic information contained in DNA is neither matter nor energy. Information is not molecules.
EXAMPLE: The information I am giving you is NOT your glass computer screen. Your screen is a MEDIUM that is made up of matter (molecules) but said computer screen is NOT the INFORMATION itself.
If you can think deep, you will come to the startling realization that the information within a book is NOT ink and paper (molecules). Information transcends its medium.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker There is no symbolic information in dna by any defenition. It's just a molecule.
"If you can think deep, you will come to the startling realization that the information within a book is NOT ink and paper (molecules). Information transcends its medium"
True. But the ink and paper only becomes information if there is someone able to read it. Nobody is reading DNA. It's just a molecule behaving in a certain way with certain properties. There is no "interpreter".
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "Nobody is reading DNA. It's just a molecule behaving in a certain way with certain properties. There is no "interpreter"." (END QUOTE)
Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
With NO person interpreting, DNA code creates & governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mr88playmaker "Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols."
And that is exactly the type of information DNA can NOT be. There is no encoder and there is no decoder. There is only an organic molecule and chemistry.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "DNA code creates & governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols"
This doesn't make any sense. So... dna is the code, the information, the encoder AND the decoder at the same time?
you see, this is why you fail at logic.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "This doesn't make any sense. So... dna is the code, the information, the encoder AND the decoder at the same time?" (END QUOTE)
Darwin ignorantly thought that the cell was a simple blob of goo but 100 yrs later, Modern science discovered DNA! Genetic code works like computer SOFTWARE and the cell works like a COMPUTER. You have within you the most sophisticated information computing system in the entire known universe. There are people now designing DNA run computers.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker I have no idea why you are bringin Darwin into a discussion about DNA, a molecule of which the existance was UNKOWN while he was alive (didn't stop Darwin from predicting it's existance though).
Secondly, who gives a shit about Darwin anyway? Biology has come a long way since then and his views are OUTDATED. Welcome in the 21st fucking century.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "Genetic code works like computer SOFTWARE and the cell works like a COMPUTER" I'm a computer scientist and software engineer. Incidently, I use genetic algoritms in one of my products. To equate life with computers is asanine.
Please don't talk about DNA computing, because you clearly have no idea at all what that is all about. Secondly, we use NATURAL phenomena ALL THE TIME to build technology. Where do you think aerodynamics come from?
ScientificBob 10 months ago
haha! You keep trying to redefine what I say. You just told me (quote) "Please don't talk about DNA computing" (End quote). What part of the following makes you so uncomfortable that you have to reword it? Here we go once more now; pay attention: DNA code works like computer software and CELLS compute genetic information.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "DNA code works like computer software and CELLS compute genetic information"
And as a computer scientist and software engineer, I call bullocks on that one.
You might be able to draw an analogy by use of metaphore, but to think that that is an accurate description of biology is simply INSANE.
ScientificBob 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker ps: being able to draw analogy proves nothing at all.
Besides, we KNOW how DNA works and forms. We KNOW for a FACT that DNA mutates and accumulates those changes through generations, filtered by a NATURAL selection process. This mechanism is NOT guided by some abstract invisible magic jew. It is a BLIND and NATURAL phenomena.
This very concept is abstracted into "genetic algoritms" LOOK IT UP. My software evolves business processes. BLINDLY and UNGUIDED.
ScientificBob 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Just because I know that you won't look it up:
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural evolution. This heuristic is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.
ScientificBob 9 months ago
@ScientificBob
Haha! Calling genetic information a "algorithm" is like calling the information you just posted an "algorithm"!!
Atheists have no argument.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker The process that shapes the genetic "information" is the algoritm, you dumbass. Not the genetics themselves.
The natural phenomena that shapes DNA: evolution. That is what the algoritm is. And if you would have looked up the terms like I asked you, you would have known this. If you would have read my post with your brain turned on instead of off, you would have known this.
You are making yourself look like a dishonest jackass.
ScientificBob 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mr88playmaker "You have within you the most sophisticated information computing system in the entire known universe" Funny. Is that why 1 in 3 people get cancer?
Furthermore, pc's don't mutate, reproduce and die.
ps: the most sophisticated computer will be the quantum pc, not DNA computing.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
As I said earlier:
Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
If Einstein is wrong, and code is matter, prove it and win the Nobel prize.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "But dna is not that kind of information. It's just a molecule." (END QUOTE)
DNA code is symbolic information. It is clear to me that you are simply confusing INFORMATION with MEDIUM.
Let's say that the information in the newspaper headline is this : "A cow jumped over the moon."
That very same information can be achieved via: email, phone, spoken word, carved into a tree trunk, spray painted on a wall, etched in sand.
The info remains the same. Info is NOT matter.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "It is clear to me that you are simply confusing INFORMATION with MEDIUM." it's clear to me that you are just repeating fallacious bullshit you pulled from some creationtard website.
"Info is NOT matter"
Indeed. But DNA is. It's a molecule. Nobody is reading or interpreting the molecule. It's JUST a molecule, behaving in a specific way (just like all molecules behave in a specific way).
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "But DNA is. It's a molecule. Nobody is reading or interpreting the molecule. It's JUST a molecule, behaving in a specific way (just like all molecules behave in a specific way). " (END QUOTE)
DNA is not your "ordinary" molecule. DNA is literally encoded with symbolic information (that works like a computer software program) that writes your body parts/systems/machines etc. and governs it all. The molecule is encoded with instructions that run the whole show.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "The molecule is encoded with instructions that run the whole show." This is false. Learn some biology.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "This is false. Learn some biology." (END QUOTE)
You (ScientificBob) assert that the DNA molecule is NOT encoded with information.
You (ScientificBob) assert that if in fact genetic code exists (and you don't believe it does) than it is not information but matter (just a molecule).
Have you not stopped to notice that there is nothing scientific about your assertions?
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mr88playmaker "You assert that the DNA molecule is NOT encoded with information" What an oxymorron. I'm not asserting anything and most certainly not a negative statement. YOU are asserting that DNA IS some kind of code. I'm just calling DNA what it actually is: a molecule.
"Have you not stopped to notice that there is nothing scientific about your assertions" YOU are making claims here about DNA. Not me.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "it is not. It's a molecule that triggers chemical reactions" (END QUOTE)
Genetic code works like CAD computer software. Any and all code can be placed on disk or in a printed book etc. and the information remains the same. Computer code triggers reactions (as you say) and these reactions are the result of ACTIONS (commands) represented in the way of symbolic information.
Genetic information -in the way of genetic code-- writes and governs all-things-biological.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "It's just a molecule. A weird molecule for sure, but a molecule nonetheless. " (END QUOTE)
That's incorrect, and here's why:
The DNA molecule is encoded with genetic symbolic information.
Because information transcends its medium, the DNA molecule (which is matter) constitutes as one of many mediums for said genetic info.
PROOF of this is that biochemists store the same genetic information within man-made computers and the information remains unaltered.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker You keep repeating that dna is "symbolic information" and I keep repeating that it isn't. I'm growing tired of this "yes/no" game.
"PROOF of this is that biochemists store the same genetic information within man-made computers and the information remains unaltered" Wrong. What they do is store the molecular structure of the molecule.
Also, no matter how you choose to look at DNA, this doesn't change ANYTING about evolution theory.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScientificBob
(A) Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(B) DNA code is symbolic INFORMATION like computer software & cell are computers.
(C) Even if humans had NEVER discovered DNA code: DNA code creates and governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(D) INFORMATION arises from a MIND.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "You keep repeating that dna is "symbolic information" and I keep repeating that it isn't. " (END QUOTE)
You are not paying attention. Re-read my posts & you'll be alarmed to notice that every time I say "symbolic information" or "genetic code" YOU THINK I am calling a "molecule" symbolic information or genetic code. But THAT is YOUR own mind playing tricks on you because YOU (alone) mistakenly EQUATE the DNA molecule with DNA code. When I say "code" you REPLY "molecule"
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Well ... yes. DNA IS a molecule. It's not a code. Nore does it possess a code. It's a molecule behaving in a certain way and has certain properties - just like all other molecules.
You can repeat your unverifiable bullshit till the cows come home, it won't make it usefull or correct.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "it is not. It's a molecule that triggers chemical reactions" (END QUOTE)
You have it backwards.
Example:
The genetic information command / codon "GGG" is the DNA code command that essentially says "Let there be Glycine" (chemical) and behold, there is a chemical written into being by symbolic information (i.e. LOGOS).
DNA presents a serious problem for materialists who based their theories on the antiquated presumption that chemicals are the starting point of life.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker You have a weird way of looking at chemistry.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob (QUOTE) "And we even know how it changes over generations" (END QUOTE)
Here's what we know about information: Information can only increase via intelligent input from a MIND (RULE: knowledge or intelligence only arises from a mind).
As I've said, a bacteria TODAY can only contain an EQUAL or LESS amount of information than did a bacteria an infinite gazillion years ago but NOT one iota MORE.
Evolution is DEAD. Darwin did not know about the information properties of DNA.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "Information can only increase via intelligent input from a MIND" Mutation is random, fuckface.
It's not intelligent, it's blind. It's a replication error that sometimes ends up having a positive effect. Please point out this "mind" you speak off in biological mutations. Put up, or shut up.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "Darwin did not know about the information properties of DNA" Darwin predicted the existance of a hereditary systems that allows for passing on changes to the next generation in an accumulative way.
EXACTLY WHAT DNA TURNED OUT TO BE.
To deny this, is to deny that paternal testing can tell you who your biological father is.
Dumbass.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker I have a medical degree so fully appreciate the wonderful intricacies associated with how DNA and RNA go about their business within the cell. None of what I see reveals a God to me, though. You're presenting your case as though it's QED. Not for me. I think you're interpreting patterns begat of a thousand million years of trial, error and refinement as explicable only by - effectively - magic.
Out of interest, the source/genesis/evolution of your creator is...?
colin5577 10 months ago
@colin5577
There is nothing "magical" about the proven fact that biological life forms are written /created and governed by symbolic information, and that symbolic information is neither matter nor energy. DNA has completely destroyed the fraudulent materialist theory that so many kids (such as yourself) were taught in school. Evolution theory can not survive the modern science of the digital information age. Evolution is junk science. The serious sciences have zero respect for it.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Serious sciences have zero respect for evolution, preferring instead to look at patterns in biology and assign their origin to a creator. That, I am positive, would be news to any serious scientist anywhere who wasn't already predisposed/conditioned to seek out God's fingerprints. DNA and its MO is very much a question of matter and energy. Saying that the information coded for by the mass of AGTC combinations is neither doesn't make a case for saying that it's all down to a God.
colin5577 10 months ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@colin5577 (QUOTE) "Saying that the information coded for by the mass of AGTC combinations is neither doesn't make a case for saying that it's all down to a God." (END QUOTE)
If you rename / relabel A,G,T,C as: 1,2,3,4 or let's even say you assign them the names "Jim, Bob, Mary, Ted" nothing changes. The code command sequences will write the matter (everything in your body) and govern it.
Darwin lived in the time of Lincoln. He had NO idea that lifeforms are designed & written into being.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@colin5577 (QUOTE) "DNA and its MO is very much a question of matter and energy." (END QUOTE)
That's incorrect. YOU personally and mistakenly maintain that symbolic information is made of matter and energy but your theory contradicts all observable, testable and verifiable evidence.
The truth is: Symbolic information is neither matter nor energy.
Information AND code ( language ) only arise out of thought / reason / MIND i.e. Nous /LOGOS.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Fair enough. This could go on forever. You're saying that, billions of years' worth of trial and error bedamned, the present complexity/variety of expression resultant from deoxyribonucleic acid replication is clear and irrefutable proof of a God because it's expression is a code thus a language thus from God. Further, it may be made up of sugars etc, but forget chemistry/biology - DNA is more than the sum of its parts. No accidents - just design.
I think you're wrong. End of.
colin5577 10 months ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@colin5577 (QUOTE) "Serious sciences have zero respect for evolution, preferring instead to look at patterns in biology and assign their origin to a creator." (END QUOTE)
"Patterns" of what? Information and language? You pretty much walked right into that one.
But you see my point now? The patterns on your sofa cushions only represent THEMSELVES. They are NOT a bio-computer software program that writes doggies and cats and horse and people into being.
Random patterns & INFO do NOT equate.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@colin5577 (QUOTE) "I have a medical degree so fully appreciate the wonderful intricacies associated with how DNA and RNA go about their business within the cell." (END QUOTE)
The people decoding DNA and RNA information are not "medical" doctors. They are cryptographers. The reason that Cryptographers /code-cracking language experts (AND computer programmers) are the guys enlisted to crack and explain genetic information to geneticists / biochemists is because code is language not matter.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
@colin5577
Symbolic information is neither matter nor energy.
Matter does not bestow meaning to symbols. Only a mind can do that.
For this reason, even the great Greek SECULAR (non religious) philosophers began all things logic upon the required foundation that "in the beginning" there was Nous Logos i.e. the MIND of the Creator and LANGUAGE. Language and thought are inseparable. All symbolic information arises from a thought.
DNA has made deists or theists out of skeptics & atheists.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
Time and space do not exist absent of themselves (i.e. time and space do not exist if time and space do not exist. See laws of logic.
The Singularity (Big Bang) marks the beginning of time & space. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. We know that the universe began to exist & therefore has a cause. Time and space did not exist prior to The Singularity (Big Bang) while the Cause of the Singularity (Big bang) DID.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
In defense of English: science is the discipline by which we interpret the natural world. We discover the best way of understanding data (synthesize it into theories). Literary study is one of the three disciplines by which we interpret texts (with theology and law). The principles learned in an English degree can be applied to the natural world, for we can see the natural world as a "text". Thus, it is not the case that someone with an English degree is necessarily unable to do science.
lstdy 1 year ago
I've been studying Pastafarianism for 15 years, Pastafarian biology for the past 6 years and I'm a bartender at Applebee's. Let's get drunk and debate the existence of the FSM.
MultiPaulinator 1 year ago 2
Why are we still wasting time with these buffoons?! It's funny how, just by stating their credentials, makes the scientist win and the ID guy look like the truly deluded loony that he is.
bersa888 1 year ago
@bersa888 "Why are we still wasting time with these buffoons?!"
Because one of those baffoons actually has a realistic shot of becoming president of the united states in 2012.
ScientificBob 1 year ago
Could you please give some examples of mutations that add new information? Too, a tangible example of criterially valid information arising from non-intelligence of some kind.
Bumblefoot69 1 year ago
hahaha rad!
tireironman 1 year ago
lol great video, very funny
Brushles83 1 year ago
The failure of creationism is epic to say the least.
Asure86 1 year ago
Do all creationists talk that way in America, why do they sound alike coz you can tell he has that Hovind style too.
01101100d 1 year ago
LMAO, that guy was a joke...pdddt, restaurant manager.
rednecktrucker1969 1 year ago 2
Top science is showing the universe was born about 15 billion years ago, not 6000.
netminderxp 1 year ago
It's not that they're uneducated in science, it's that they don't even know what sciene IS.
spiffythealien 1 year ago 10
Language a proof of design????? lol
B4mytyme 1 year ago
lol
gitterfritter 2 years ago
ManKIND has ALWAYS been ManKIND as we know it today. What DNA shows is that billions and billions and billions of years ago, the same amount of information had to exist in a human cell as today. It shuts down Darwinian Evolution theory at its roots and shatters the whole crazy idea that people evolved from animals. Darwin lived in the time of Abraham Lincoln way before anyone had any idea about what a cell is. It turns out that a cell works like a computer and runs on Information and language.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
Boy, define information. You seem to be going on a different definition than the rest of the English speaking world.
squishy121888 2 years ago
Ever since Darwin, the evidence for evolution has only increased, and the scientific consensus that evolution happened has only gotten stronger. Why do you creationists always speak of this subject authoritatively when you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
CodaCola 2 years ago
Why do you evolutionists always speak of this subject authoritatively when you don't know the difference between fact and theory? Anyway, this is not a scientific debate. Science has as much to do with this as Chuck Norris has to do with The Banana Splits. It''s an endless argument between Christianity and Atheism over who's right.
The Truth: Both sides are fucking idiots for trying to make science out of religion and religion out of science.
KevServo 2 years ago
The only thing you said that was right is that this isn't a scientific debate (unless pro-science vs. anti-science can be considered as a scientific debate).
We know the difference between fact and theory. Not sure where you got the idea that we don't.
Evolution isn't an atheist theory. Creationists wish to label it as atheist, and you obviously fell for it.
Finally, we "evolutionists" aren't idiots, unless siding with the scientists on SCIENCE is idiotic, but only idiots think that.
CodaCola 1 year ago
WOW, what a qualifications disparity between opponents! I would sure like to watch the rest of this debate - does anyone know where I can find it???
CaneFu 2 years ago
(Quote): Dinoasuars to people is a weird conspiracy theory, with no basis in actual science. " (end quote)
You're wrong.
Check this out: Evolution VIDEO (DISCOVERY Channel educational series): Asserts that fish turned into dinosaurs, and dinosaurs turned into people. This is the FOUNDATION for Evolution. It is based on ZERO science.
watch?v=5W763lQR0tU
Re: our so called "origins" check this out. It is taught in all the school books: Monkeys turning into people!
watch?v=OjprkQbOouQ
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
Are you retarded mentally? I'm serious. Are you? Dinosaurs are not even close to our line!
G11EM2 2 years ago 3
The Evolutionists teach that humans evolved from dinosaurs. Watch the evolution educational video at the link I showed you the link to. It's what is taught in our schools; that mice turned into dinosaurs and then dinosaurs turned into people. It's a fairy tale. What biology shows is that there is NO such thing as General Evolution. What that means is that there is no such thing as one KIND turning into another KIND. Humans have always been humans and animals have always been animals.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
What state are you in? That is a known fact to happen. Humans ARE animals. That is not taught in any school, I know it isn't becasuse I'm in school and know that not to be what happened. We evolved from other homo speices. Who came from the austrolopithicines. Dinosaurs where the ancestors of birds not man.
G11EM2 2 years ago 7
Dummy said: (Quote): "Dinosaurs where the ancestors of birds not man." (end quote)
Coo coo! Coo coo!
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
I'm also not letting you get off easy with anything here. You haver no idea what your talking about and I'll point that out. What is a kind? Creationists have never defined it and never will. Humans are known to have came from other animals and that is a well known fact. But dinosaurs are reptiles that evoled around the same time as mammals, we came from mammal like reptiles. Biology is based almost entirely off of what you call general evolution. There is NO I repeat NO evidence against it.
G11EM2 2 years ago
@Mr88playmaker
"It's what is taught in our schools; that mice turned into dinosaurs and then dinosaurs turned into people."
Worst. Strawman. Ever.
leungchaan 1 year ago
So, in order to show me an error, instead of showing me something peer reviewed, or at least researched, you link me to something that begins with "Evillution." Can you hear me laughing?
squishy121888 2 years ago
While listening to the second guy talk about the things he's studying, it just hit me how ridiculous it is that creationists have convinced themselves that scientists are nothing but god-hating atheists who make it their life's work trying to disprove stupid bible tales.
The arrogance of these people.
Most scientists ignore this "debate" and creationism, because unlike creationists, they're actually busy contributing to the increase of mankind's knowledge, which extends FAR beyond this issue.
CodaCola 2 years ago
Notice how the creationist uses every opportunity to claim "proof of God's existence" as to downplay the fact that he clearly has no real qualifications.
HeaIthyThinking 2 years ago 2
He sounds an awful lot like another certain somebody with fake credentials, spouting bullshit about evolution being a lie and dinosaurs living with humans.
CodaCola 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The serious sciences regard Darwinian Evolution as pure nonsense. In every scientific field, everyone who has proposed any viable foundational model for a hypothesis or a theory has the math to back it up EXCEPT for Darwinists! The serious sciences scoff at Darwinian Evolution because it has ZERO math to back its claims. ZERO as in zilch, nada, NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. The serious sciences have waited forever for General Evolution to go away so that science can be respectable again.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
Biology doesn't need math but even if it did, biology falls apart without evolution.
G11EM2 2 years ago
Mutations are a negative. A type-o or copy error is a negative. A written instruction or "command" is another. DNA works like a computer program.
DNA code = Information and langauge; specifically instructions. Information arises out of a mind and so does language.
By the way, DNA also does error correcting (proof reading). It is an extraordinary wonder of information processing technology.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
@Mr88playmaker
Actually, your assertion about mutations is factually incorrect. The vast majority of mutations are neutral, not negative. Go read a book or something.
And you're still all bent out of shape over information. For example, you said, "Information arises out of a mind." While that may be true, it is not mutually true. Information may arise out of a mind, but not all information has to arise out of a mind. Therefor, your whole argument falls apart.
HelixTheThinker 2 years ago 7
@HelixTheThinker confidently asserts (QUOTE): "Actually, your assertion about mutations is factually incorrect." (END QUOTE)
You make this too easy. Go online now and test your "theory" using a Random Mutations Generator.
You see what happened just now? Next time, get the facts before you argue something that's been completely dis proven.
Zoink!
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker Narf! poit!
TheEnglishAthiest 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker
Mr88playmaker is a fucking subhuman dumb fuck.
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
@NegativeBeef
haha! Was it something I said...?
There's egg on your face.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@HelixTheThinker (QUOTE): "Information may arise out of a mind, but not all information has to arise out of a mind." (END QUOTE)
You say that SOME information originates out of a NON-intelligent source but Intelligence requires an Intelligent 1st Cause Agent source ie a MIND.
Are you saying that the 1st cause Intelligence that is the Mind of God arose from NON-intelligence? That's illogical
Plus, the law is that DNA contains at least as much info today as it did an infinite gazillion yrs ago
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@HelixTheThinker (QUOTE): The vast majority of mutations are neutral, not negative.: (END QUOTE)
Ha! Try telling that to a Random Mutations Generator. Go ahead. See if a generator proves your ridiculous theory disproves it.
You should only argue facts that can be backed up by scientific proof.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker Man, you're still replying to a comment I made 7 months ago. Unreal. Random mutations generator? What are you talking about? I told you before, you should go read a book or something. The average person has a few dozen mutations. Yet a small proportion of people have ill effects from these mutations. Ergo, most mutations are either neutral, or beneficial. I'd also argue that few are beneficial, but that is more difficult to positively prove.
HelixTheThinker 1 year ago
@HelixTheThinker (QUOTE): "Man, you're still replying to a comment I made 7 months ago. " (END QUOTE) I don't live on this web site. I have a life. I can go for months without checking my youtube mailbox to find old messages like yours. There is a world out there beyond the Internet.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
DNA serves the death blow to Evolution.
Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
If Einstein is wrong, and code is matter, prove it and
win the Nobel prize.
Mr88playmaker 10 months ago
"Mutations are a negative"
No, by far most mutations are neutral. No get an education. Stat!
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence. Information is neither matter nor energy. Information originates from a mind.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
Mutations are like typeos. They do not constitute as information, neither can they add information to the genome.
To SEE for yourself whether mutations are "negatives", "neutrals" or "positives," try a random mutations generator for proof, and you will find that mutations are always NEGATIVES.
(1) A positive would ADD info.
(2) A neutral would not alter the info (info would remain the same)
(3) A negative will destroy info!
See for yourself which occurs:
randommutation(dot)com
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
People keep telling you why your arguments about information is faulty, yet you keep beating the same dead horse. Are you dense?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
I think he attends the Nephilimfree school of creationist filibustering.
kingjoe99 2 years ago
Tell that to my mutation that inhibits the collection of cholesterol on my arteries.
squishy121888 2 years ago
The mutation in your arteries is neither information nor langauge. It's a freaking mutation. It's matter. Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
Dinosaurs do not turn into people and they never have. You've been reading too much Darwin and viewing too many fraudulent 19th Century drawings of rats turning into folks billions of years ago. It never happened. DNA proves Darwinian evolution is a hoax.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
Uh, considering the mutation is written within my genetic code, it has a basis within information. Language, no, but information, yes. Are you simply not aware of what information is outside of "Herp derp?"
*Sigh* Dinoasuars to people is a weird conspiracy theory, with no basis in actual science. DNA shows evolution to be correct as it *Gasp* changes phenotypes and genotypes.
squishy121888 2 years ago
@ mr88playmaker
so what are YOUR credentials sir?
u sound more like the first guy...
cappadinoceo 2 years ago
@Mr88playmaker
"Dinosaurs do not turn into people and they never have."
Nobody claims they did, so what the hell are you talking about?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
@Mr88playmaker Wow. So much failure, so few words. Let me guess - you didn't do well in science class at school.
blehblehbleh86 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker
Information is the communication of knowledge or intelligence. Read a book.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
Language is a uniquely human trait.
Animals utilize low level communication signals but are incapable of authoring an alphabet or coding system, assigning meaning to it, much less writing sophisticated digital computer programs as it were. The only langauge known to man is (1) that of human mind origin, and (2) DNA code.
DNA works like a computer program only far more sophisticated than any program ever written or even dreamed of by man.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
Whale songs are more complex than english, whale songs are 11 and english is 9 on the same scale. Your arguement is destroyed by whales.
G11EM2 2 years ago
Whales utilize low level communication, not language. Also, the low level communication of whales originates in a mind. Yes, all language originates in a mind but whales did not write DNA code. It had to have been another mind, as whales are themselves a product of said language and information (ie code).
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
Then explain amino acids. They are information that come from basic chemicals. No mind involved.
G11EM2 2 years ago
@G11EM2
ya but to understand amino acids, atoms are just atoms, atoms alone do not understand that they are atoms, they have to form into a brain and the only known self aware brain in the world is the human one.
whydid666 1 year ago
So? I don't get what point your trying to make.
G11EM2 1 year ago
@G11EM2
what fucking scale, when whales use syntax, Idiosyncrasy, and write music variegating octaves then whales then you can claim whale language is more complex then human....
whydid666 1 year ago
If I remember it was about how many uses one sound was had and how they were able to use it as often as they did. It's been a while since i read about it so if there's newer evidence out there, feel free.
G11EM2 1 year ago
Linguistics 101: For something to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements:
(1) an alphabet or coding system
(2) correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words)
(3) meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.
Code originates in a mind (thought, language i.e, Logos).
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
DNA serves the death blow to Evolution.
Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
If Einstein is wrong, and code is matter, prove it and win the Nobel prize.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago