Oh thats not true.Information can easily come via mutation.Ever wondered why you can see so many colours?Only 3 celltypes are needed.And guess what they are all only slightly different from each other so that the pigments inside have a slightly different form which explains different absorption spectrums.Seems pretty beneficial that this "mistake" happened right?Just to name one
I saw a Hollow Earther (a person who believes the earth is hollow and there are cities on the inside) quote a geologist saying "He said that an earthquake causes the earths plates to ring 'like a bell' well, a bell is hollow!"
What if he asked the geologist
"given that the earth rings like a bell, what justification do you have in saying it isn't hollow!" That is what is happening here.
The stars could be said to be "information" about the season, like a language, but only metaphorically.
If you Creationist Fan boys got any sense of honesty, go watch the original videos, and check the sources. Launching your well known prefabricated arguments, stolen from Creation.com, just ain't cutting it in this century anymore. Grow up, either know what you are talking about, or go pray some.
Are you trying to be this bad, or is it indeed that bad? The "Libraries of Information" refers to the actual Libraries. They won't fit here, go read them. Also, what I explain here is the difference between how Scientists say Information and mean inheritable traits, while ID proponents say Information and mean Personal Intelligence Made It. Which is worlds apart. But hey, no need to be honest at all. BTW, sentences make sence between 2 periods. Chopping 4 second segments is not responding. Byes.
Your rebuttal is to tell me to go read libraries? Are you serious?
And you are wrong about information (suprise!). Evo's and ID proponents BOTH understand that DNA codes for life. The debate is not over whether it contains information or not - any scientist who knows anything about biology KNOWS that DNA contains information. This is a serious scientific mistake on your part.
Maybe these 15 questions were too difficult for the Evo's? Your faith is now exposed!
@onceforgivennowfree A) what you call information is not what Scientists call information. Creationists call information what they suppose displays signs of Intelligence. Scientists call information what the dictionary says: The stuff you collect by observation! You clowns do not even fucking know what information means. And listen kid, You can;t ask any one if they are serious. You do not like the answer "libraries" but you find the useless "God Did it" great. What method can be based on that?
yeah because "it's a weird molecule" is completely useful. LOL!
I love how you Darwinist love to oversimplify creationist beliefs to "God did it" like you have made some kind of point. Our belief in God is actually a best case scenario based on much philosophical proofs, the Christian God based on historical and internal and external accuracies and consistencies, and what you call "God did it" is the mound of scientific evidence consistently matching the creation account.
@DiscipleTube1 Boo hoo. The difference between Evolution and Creationism is that In one youtube video one can not fit more than a millionth of the info of Evolutionary Biology and its seperate fields of Study. But all the stupidity of Creationism can easily fit in a 2 minute video or in a phrase.God did it. And what does history have to do with anything?Go treat a virus with a history book, or even better with "God did it", and you will find out why Biology & Medicine are not based on old books.
yeah you've been doing a lot of crying, I'm glad your finally pointing it out.
You can stack dung as high and as wide as you want; it's still a pile of dung. Guess what, plenty of Christian people utilizing their Christian worldview have developed medical technology to save lives. You've tried to feed me this garbage before. Stop comparing a debate of ORIGINS with treatments in the observable present. Its ridiculous and it makes you look foolish.
You can claim that Creationists are stupid, but you are getting pwned by them :P
Louis Pasteur came up with germ theory, and he was a Creationist. No need for Darwinian nonsense. Or how about the inventor of the MRI? Also a Creationists.
@onceforgivennowfree Louis Pasteur? Well if you so desperate for expert opinnion why don't you ask today's experts? You know that we have even better people doing what Pasteur did too, and nowadays. You know it right?We call them Sci-en-tists. But you see Germs would not be much of a problem, if the "Holy Books" mentioned that apart from fish and animals and the sky, "God" "created" also some invisible dangerous stuff. So why don;t we all wash ourselve with pigeon blood like the Bible says?
Or how about Eanrst Chair, 1945 Nobel Prize for penicillin. Heres what he has to say about evolution: "A very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory … I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’
That's right....no need for your Darwin faith!
You can keep denying that DNA contains information, but that wont make your fairy tale true!
@onceforgivennowfree Yeah, I got an idea, stop a taxi driver, and ask him if he accepts the facts evolution, and if he does not, well, Hello Creationism! Listen, stop fooling yourself and people already. You find these fucking unimportant quotes, and you ignore the whole body of peer reviewed Science of today. Its simply pathetic.
Can you please provide a source for the claim that Creationists call information "that which displays signs of intelligence"? The 15 questions pamphlet did not state this. You are making a mistake between the definition of information, and it's cause. Yes, I believe that intelligence is the only adequate cause of information, but I don't define information as "that which displays signs of intelligence". I define it the same way as anyone else....a message, a code, etc
@onceforgivennowfree Are you kidding me? Its both an Intelligence Design and a Creationist Mantra that information is unmistakeable sign of a "creator/designer" Intelligence. Why patronize me? You already know Stephen Meyer swears by this, and I know you got his photo under your pillow. And Again, you conflict with your own oppinions. "I define it the same way as anyone else....a message, a code, etc" but "Yes, I believe that intelligence is the only adequate cause of information". LOL at that.
@ONESPECIES The Laws of Information do not come from creationist sources. They state that information comes from an intelligent source. It is not defined by material substances, but requires intelligence to create and to understand. If no one and no thing understands or ever understood the arrangement of matter to have meaning, then it is not information. Information is the transference of what can be understood, and understanding requires intelligence.
@benfaust A magnetized rock, preserves information of the magnetic field that magnetized it. Is that rock Intelligent then? Laws of Information deal with Information, Biology deals with Genetics. But when Information Scientists do actually study the DNA, they do often point out the distinctive features it has that seperate it from information that ccame from an agents. For DNA, "information", means molecular structures that carry traits. It does not mean what Creationists would like it mean.
@ONESPECIES And yet the agents which duplicate the DNA have to understand that information, including the "EOF" marker, and recreate a protein based upon that encoded information. For only one part in that sequence to have accidentally happened is nearly impossible. For all of them to happen and work together almost flawlessly by mere unguided chance is irrational. Information in DNA is beyond random bit of "information". It is a complex series of instructions upon which agents act.
@benfaust Sorry sir, are you insane? What do you mean by: "the agents which duplicate the DNA have to understand that information"? Understand means "To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp". How can you confuse Biochemical processes with understanding? Whats next? Talking bacteria? The processes of DNA are biochemical buddy, and we call them information when we study them. They are components reactive in nature, not thinking agents.
@ONESPECIES The DNA is reproduced, and that reproduction (RNA) is then converted into protein. According to Atheist evolutionists, YOU are a series of biochemical processes.
@benfaust You are disappointingly uneducated on the matter, and thats not the bad thing. The bad thing, is you expect the Universities of the world to bow before your ignorance. Well good luck with that. As far as I am concerned, I was just explaining the confused way Creationists understand the word information. They even quote Dawkins, and they ignore Dawkins never means information to be : "Intelligent Designer Evidence". So quit it already.
@ONESPECIES Will do. Since you're just a series of biochemical process (which you cannot deny), then you obviously have no intelligence. What you say therefore means absolutely nothing. It's just a random array of meaningless junk. (By your own reasoning, not mine.) The arrogant fool responds to things he cannot answer with insults and indirect statements of self-superiority. As you said, biochemical processes cannot understand.
@benfaust The only one here possesing no intelligence is you buddy. OMFG! You are insane. Listen dude, humans got Brains, which indeed work biochemicaly but have specific fucntions that host intelligence. I am sorry to break the news to your uneducated ears, but the internal organs of the cell, do not have brains of their own. And thats what you claimed, that the "agents" thatduplicate DNA think. You compare a trillion neuron Brain, with one part of only one cell. You are certainly clueless.
@ONESPECIES A brain is the only organ that can host intelligence? Have you seen the process through which DNA is copied into RNA and then the code is decoded and produces a protein? Pasteur demonstrated a long time ago that life comes only from life of its own kind. If you want to believe the myth of macro evolution, which defies the laws of physics, information, and biology, feel free to do so. But don't call other people insane or uneducated who demand those laws be fulfilled.
@benfaust Whatever dude, just get your meds. For more go ask a fucking Biologist. But you won't do that cause he would have to shutter your fantasies in seconds. Yeah buddy, okays, cells have brains, Pasteur said bacteria had a brain, yeah yeah,brains everywhere, for the Insane. Dude you can;t even speak English. You say brain is not the only organ hosting intelligence, and then you about life coming from life. How is that related? I will tell how, you take meth and go on the internet, stop it.
@ONESPECIES No point in trying to carry on a conversation with someone who throws a insult-filled fit every time someone responds in a way that doesn't please him. You may be highly intelligent, but your outbursts make you sound like a total idiot.
@ONESPECIES Have you read the response you just submitted? I can't even speak English? If you can't see how the things I said are related, you have a serious comprehension issue, and there's no point in trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with you. You said, among other things, "You say brain is not the only organ hosting intelligence, and then you about life coming from life." I can't speak English? Really... Let's not argue intelligence or I.Q.
@benfaust YEah you are right, you can speak english, I was wrong, the problem is you can't think. You fly from one unrelated issue to the next, you spout inaccuracies, and never respond to my points at all. You just come up with new outdated and invalidated quotes every time, like you just landed in the discussion. You ignore basic facts, like that enzymes and proteins or organelles do not have a mind of their own. All the facts at hand show you are the one not worth having a conversation with.
@ONESPECIES You really think I can't think because I brought up a point of view that disagrees with yours. I have responded to all of your points. As for "basic facts," you haven't really brought any into the discussion. If you just want to argue with people, have at it. If you want to have an intellectual discussion, let's do it like mature adults, and lay off the infantile name calling and insults.
@benfaust HA! Ok, look if YOU want to have an intellectual discussion, you must have 2 things: Have a basic understanding of what the certified experts say on the issue you will tackle, and also be ready to employ your intellectual honesty. Even here you claim you answered all of my points. Like? Hahahaha. See? You are all about big words about maturity, but in essense you can't be mature your self.Above all you have the audacity to think all the world's Universities ignore something you know.
@ONESPECIES I'm not going to replicate our discussion to prove that I've said what I've said. I'm glad you think you're so intellectually superior. Actually, I'm not. It's sad for you. Go attack someone your own size. I don't play mind games with idiots.
@benfaust I am not intellectually superior, I just do not make claims against professional scientists and beyond my expertise, and those claims that I do make, are already proven by Scientists. What you do not get is that the proponents of Science in youtube do not make new claims. We just simplify mainstream science, in the hope some of you guys might get it. I am not playing mindgames. If I did, I could find invalidated quotes and throw them at you like you did. Study some actual biology.
@ONESPECIES If you take a long look at science, you'll see that scientists who promote macro evolution do so by promoting assumptions to create their conclusions that everything came from nothing. Laws of physics, information, and biology seriously conflict with the theory of macro evolution. The fact that people who don't want to believe there is a God approach the data with erroneous presuppositions doesn't impress me. Many brilliant people in history strongly oppose Darwinism.
@benfaust Hahaha, you laughable charachter. As I said, go study some real Biology. If you do not wan't to because it conflicts with your narrow faith, remember that most Christians accept the facts of Evolution. And if you do not like that either, you are welcome to exit the activity of commenting about Biology all together. Right now what you do is quote made up non-arguements like a Creationist parrot. Be my guest, but you ain;t changing what all Universities in the world teach sucka. Byes.
@ONESPECIES Tell that to Pasteur. He was a creationist. In fact, that's why he made the discoveries he did (while being strongly opposed by evolutionists). He's known as the father of microbiology and immunology. I guess he needs to go study some real biology too. Despite what you might think, macro evolution is NOT a proven fact, and many observable phenomena shed serious doubt on it. But you're right, both I and the ignorant father of microbiology need to go study some biology.
@benfaust dude, just quite already. And Klisthenes is the father of democracy, but he owned slaved, should we too? Democritus was a Pagan, and he was the first to conceive of the atom. Not to Mention that Newton believed the Bible had apocryphal messages and spells for demons and spirits. Should we believe that cause the Gravity man did? Listen, Science is a great method, cause it does not depend on one person, but bodies of evidence. You can quote your ass off, that wont change, thankfully.
@ONESPECIES I mentioned Pasteur's belief in creationism because it's very relevant. You said I need to study some real biology because I believe in creationism and therefore am ignorant on the subject of biology. And yet the greatest biologist in history believed in creationism as well, so that belief is obviously not due to a lack of biological knowledge. Yes, science is a great method, because it calls us to question unproven theories, like evolution.
@benfaust You demonstrate a huge disability to understand anything about Science. Newton was the greatest Physics mind,until part of his theory had to be changed to better describe the facts.And Einstein who became the greatest then, gave his place to the next generation which added quantum physics on the table. Pasteur, is OUTDATED, in every shape and form possibly relevant to actual active modern science. And even if he believed in fairies,what matters is what he proved, not what he believed.
@ONESPECIES Pasteur's work is far from outdated. It continues to save countless lives. The reason it's relevant is because he demonstrated that life comes only from life, which caused major problems for the idea of origin of life from non-life. Yes, it mattes what he proved, and that was a major one, which remains true to this day. By the way, there's no need to place insults in each response: "You demonstrate a huge disability," "you laughable character," "you can't think." Sheesh.
@benfaust The names I call you are properties you exhibit. You try to overtake scientific facts that have millions of pages of research behind them with simple catch phrases. Like "Life comes only from Life". Not only that you have the audacity of a moron to add "which caused major problems for the idea of origin of life from non-life". Evolution not only explains microorganisms, it also explains what we have to do to fight them now that penicilin is failing on highly evolved microorganisms.
@ONESPECIES If you say so. "Life comes from life" is a fact, not a "catch phrase." It doesn't matter if you don't like it. Penicillin fails on microorganisms which previously weren't resistant due to lateral gene transfer from other microorganisms which are already resistant. There is no creation of new genetic information -- it is already there. It's not "evolution," it's gene sharing, which is quite a different matter altogether.
@benfaust As I told you before, if that flamboyant display of misinformation is your best shot, you better quit talking about evolution, and go make somebody a sandwitch or pray some. You rediculous Creation.com Zombie.
@ONESPECIES You keep replying to things I say by saying it's misinformation, then throwing in a few insults, instead of giving an intelligent rendering of how what I've said is supposedly false. You seem much better at insulting others than in carrying on a mature, intelligent, profitable conversation. It would help if you didn't treat others as though they are beneath you. After all, they're not. I hope you realize that.
@benfaust Yeah, cause naturally, Its fully possible to go through the Entire Theory of Evolution, its evidence, and the arguments of the opposition, in this comment section, with 500 character exchanges. HAHAHA. Then you ask me why I call you mildly insane. An intelligent conversation goes like this. You go right now and spend about 1-2 years, educating yourself on what exactly Evolution is, and based on what evidence. And if you still disagree,but do know the subject,we will have a great time.
@ONESPECIES I've already done that. You obviously just want to get in the last word, since you keep bothering to reply to things you can't or won't answer, providing only verbal abuse. That being the case, I'll let you have the last word. Hit me with your best shot of childish insults.
@benfaust Childish Insults? Dude, I have read Creation.Com, I have watched "Does God Exist ?", I have seen all the repetitive Creationist material, and all you have done, is memorize all that. And THAT, has in the court of law be found to NOT BE SCIENCE. I meant spend 2 years on actual Evolutionary Biology. The peer reviewed kind. If you don;t wanna do that, tough shit, one more person chooses to go uneducated to the grave. You won't be the first. Its common. The damage is you spread this stuff.
The problem for Neo-Darwinism is that there is no known mechanism by which new functional genetic information and traits can be generated. When you look at the genetic level, the DNA, mutations are deleterious. They corrupt or remove genetic information. They do not add entirely new traits and genes to it. The reason this is the case is because DNA is a system of "specified complexity". It is instructions for particular molecular outcomes and constructions. Copy errors do not improve DNA.
@TavrenElkair i agree that is does not "improve" DNA, however, it is possible that a random mutation could be beneficial to an organism. in nature, it is survival of the fittest, if the mutation is not beneficial to the creature, or hurts it, it will not pass on it's DNA therefore the faulty genetics do not get passed on. but if the mutation gives it an advantage, it will pass on it's DNA and it's children will have the mutation,
Has anyone here read "Signature In The Cell" by Stephen C. Meyers? I'm reading it right now. Very interesting. It's all about DNA and the information/instructions within it.
What kind of answer is this, no freaking Biologist would say something like that. Mutations don't have to be harmful some are, but how mutations explain the diversity of life is that species seperation coupled with mutation and enviroment that mutation is useful in can form different species.
@slicingwater "Mutations don't have to be harmful some are, but how mutations explain the diversity of life is that species seperation coupled with mutation and enviroment that mutation is useful in can form different species."
The vast majority of genetic mutations are deleterious (a loss or corruption of genetic information). If I lost a leg, I'd more than likely get better at hopping than I was before. Adaptation to environment and conditions is fine, but it has great limitations.
@TavrenElkair Well unlike our primate cousins we have two chromosomes that fused together and were doing better than okay. The weird shape of the Hammer head shark was the direct result of a mutation, which greatly enhanced their ability to find pray through electromagnetism. Well if you were born with out legs, and your whole town of five million were cut off and forced to live in caves where legs were useless and harmful overall then your mutation would be beneficial in that enviroment.
@slicingwater The examples you listed are potentially viable as examples of beneficial mutations, however the idea that these things were in fact mutations caused by evolution is an extrapolation or something inferred instead of witnessed or experimentally tested. For instance, you could argue that dinosaurs evolving into birds is also a beneficial mutation, however that is an unwitnessed and unverified assertion of evolutionism from the start.
@TavrenElkair What do you means potentially viable, these things happened, caused by evolution, its the other way around mutations caused the evolution of these species coupled with natural selection. Birds are Dinosaurs, where do you think scientist figured that from the paleontology record.
I guess in the end it comes down to a person's perception of faith in general, and certain faith specifically. I believe reasonable faith is evidence based, you (seem to) believe that faith is NOT reasonable and by its very nature can NOT be evidence based. So very obviously we completely disagree. As with the issues of Abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinism, it's just another disagreement to add to the pile. It shouldn't be surprising that an atheist would consider "rational faith" an impossibility.
Here's another thought, can faith itself be evidence? It certainly can. If person A has faith in person B's honesty, than Person A's belief or assertion that Person B is honest is evidence of that honesty. Unless of course Person A is incorrect and has misplaced faith in Person B. However, Person A's assertion of faith in Person B is still evident, whether misplaced or otherwise. Now if multiple people have faith in Person B's integrity, that is evidence that Person B's integrity really is true.
@TavrenElkair This is the best example of Poe's Law that I've ever personally seen. There is no point in continuing this exchange as you are either a f***ing idiot, or you are trolling. You have stated some really stupid shit, but this really takes the cake.
@impiouspuppy "You have stated some really stupid shit, but this really takes the cake."
And yet you have not refuted my statements very well if at all. Your "refutation" consists of, "You're an idiot." It's a common theme coming from atheists against all Creationists. I guess its easier than actually putting forth constructive counter arguments. I could even personally construct more substantial arguments against my points than you guys have. You're not even trying. You resort to name calling.
@odinata If a person dies for a cause, or for the greater good, is the faith of that person in the greater good or that cause not evident by his or her actions? In that way, the person's actions are evidence of that person's faith or belief. So if evidence can be attributed to faith, belief, faithfulness, or trust, how can faith be entirely disconnected from evidence? No one has shown how this is not so. They've simply stated "You're an idiot," or "Faith is not evidence." Nothing more.
@FongLin100 Faith alone certainly does not prove evidence. Faith, however, can be itself an evidence, though a rather circumstantial one depending on the situation. And the argument is that faith can be evidence-based (as in, based in large part or even minor part on supporting evidences), not that faith is absolutely without doubt or question based entirely on evidence. Certainly not. By its very nature, faith is an issue of trust and belief. Evidence, however, can build it.
So is it possible for a person to both have faith or trust in something that is rational? Is it possible for a typically rational person to behave irrationally, or the other way around? If I have faith that the elevator at an apartment building will not kill me, how does one measure whether or not that faith is rational or irrational? You would do so by analyzing my methods of deduction and reasoning. Why do I trust the elevator? Does evidence or reason play a part in that trust?
@TavrenElkair You really have a hard-on for the equivocation fallacy, don't you? Because you fear something does not make irrational. How do you determine the rational from the irrational? E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E
@impiouspuppy Exactly! That's why an "evidence-based faith" is a "rational faith", and a blind faith is irrational. Faith is not inherently irrational, which is what you seem to be suggesting. It can be, but it does not have to be.
A single tRNA (transfer RNA) molecule can carry a single unique Amino Acid. Each of the tRNA molecules can only line up with one particular matching molecular "slot" in the mRNA within the Ribosomes. This is where and how the "translation" happens. The Protein is built in this way, one Amino Acid added after the other in sequence all along the line until the entire Protein has been built. And so, RNA (along with the Ribosomes) is critical to both the transcription and translation of DNA.
@TavrenElkair "And so, RNA (along with the Ribosomes) is critical to both the transcription and translation of DNA." Sure, RNA is important for translation but that is not what you originally said. Also, ribosomes aren't critical to transcription.
RNA itself does not actually perform any of the "translation of DNA", however it is a critical component in the process since it copies the information in DNA and takes it to the Ribosomes (the "construction factory" of the cell). If you envision the data of the DNA that has been copied (transcribed) to mRNA (messenger RNA) like an array in computer programming, each "slot" of the single dimensional array contains information for a single Amino Acid. Building a Protein requires many "parts".
@TavrenElkair "RNA itself does not actually perform any of the "translation of DNA""
To clarify, RNA does not actually perform any of the "DNA Translation" ON ITS OWN. It also requires a Ribosomes, in most cases, and requires two types of RNA, mRNA and tRNA. :-)
lol I never said "DNA to mRNA to Ribosomes to tRNA to Protein = Jesus." But it's funny that you went in that direction. Does something inherent within this complex processes make you automatically connect the two together? :-)
@TavrenElkair You corrected your original mistake but it still seems you barely understand the basics of the central dogma. My point being if you hardly understand this what business do you have trying to have a conversation about evolution?
I clarified and detailed my generalized statement. RNA is essentially in the translation of DNA into Proteins. So my general statement still stands. DNA is translated by way of RNA. That was not false. The way I worded the one line "RNA itself does not actually perform any of the "translation of DNA" was incorrect and so I corrected it after noticing this. :-)
"The relationship between the nucleotide sequences of genes and the amino-acid sequences of proteins is determined by the rules of translation"
"In transcription, the codons of a gene are copied into messenger RNA by RNA polymerase. This RNA copy is then decoded by a ribosome that reads the RNA sequence by base-pairing the messenger RNA to transfer RNA
The crux of the issue is the interpretation of the data and the underlying philosophy behind that form of interpretation. Scientific naturalism demands the rejection of things such as God from the outset. Many scientists are still religious of course, but that still doesn't change the fact that they're predisposed to explain everything through material naturalistic means, even when they can't. Usually in these situations they'll admit not knowing with any certainty, but not always.
1) "You even know what I know"... I know what you know? I can assume I might know what you know, but unless I actually do know what you know, then I do not really know what you know, but only thought I knew what you know.
2) "even when you're wrong about what I know"... So then I know what you know, even when I don't know what you know... It's logically impossible to both know and not know the same thing at the same time. So either I know it, or I do not. It can't be both.
@TavrenElkair And therefore we can conclude you must be wrong, since you cannot know *and* not know. Unless you knew I would refute myself (at least according to you) and therefore you would know that you didn't know! Yep, you must be God.
Man, you have some airtight logic going for you. ;-)
I'm providing rational evidence based arguments here up for debate and analysis, comparison and available to be refuted, and all I'm getting in response is "you're an idiot, you're a liar." It really is quite hard to have any sort of discussion or debate when that's the sort of opposition you're left dealing with. But perhaps I should not be surprised. After all, this is YouTube.
@TavrenElkair Yes; you're here, this is YouTube. Where else could you claim to believe in God based on evidence without providing evidence, and then go on and on about evolution and abiogenesis not being true because it doesn't meet what you think constitutes evidence or fact. Oh, the irony!
It *is* hard to discuss when you make up your own definition of what evidence is.
It's not that I think you're an idiot and therefore ignore what you say, but rather what you say shows that you're an idiot.
@impiouspuppy "Where else could you claim to believe in God based on evidence without providing evidence"
I have been providing arguments, points, evidences, counter arguments, and more. You however have neither countered my statements nor provided evidence to support your own stance or refute mine. You HAVE resorted to insults numerous times, however, so I guess in your playbook that counts for something. If you didn't believe it to be so, you would not keep falling back on it.
@TavrenElkair And you have ignored a point I have made several times: if what you (or OFNF, or any other bible thumper) have said were true, then it could have and would have been published and falsified evolution. That's the way science works. You can throw up your little objections, make your pathetic arguments, tell your little lies, and ignore the VAST amounts of evidence that indeed support evolutionary theory. If what you said had any merit, biology books would be rewritten. Period.
@impiouspuppy "That's the way science works. You can throw up your little objections, make your pathetic arguments, tell your little lies, and ignore the VAST amounts of evidence that indeed support evolutionary theory. If what you said had any merit, biology books would be rewritten. Period."
Yes, you have called me a liar many times. This one probably pushes it beyond a dozen. I've also stated arguments against the total reliability of the peer review process as well.
Christianity and the Bible was actually intentionally removed from the public school system (at least in America) back a number of decades ago. Until that time, it had been an integral part of the curriculum. Back then I could have made your same argument but supporting Christianity.
@impiouspuppy Your argument for implicitly trusting the peer review process, text books and scientific journals is what's called "begging to authority" or "begging to mass consensus". Such a system of pointing to authority figures and consensus can be as guilty of knowledge repression as discovery. An example would be the Roman Catholic church throughout the dark ages. They widely and regularly suppressed ideas that didn't match their own, yet for centuries people trusted their authority.
@TavrenElkair You are mixing your fallacies. This is pretty funny, since you are almost a study in fallacious argument and specious reasoning. I do not 'implicitly trust' the peer review process; I understand how scientific methodology works, and peer review is only a part of the process. It is the way we know what we know. You claim an 'evidence based faith'. That is a contradiction of terms. How can anyone know that God exists? So far, there are only two ways, and neither involves evidence.
1) God personally reveals Himself to you. 2) Someone tells you ‘God has revealed Himself to me’; or by extrapolation, you’re told through a book written by *someone*, who was told by someone, who was told by someone, etc, who said ‘God revealed Himself to me’. And what do we think of people that claim God speaks to them? ‘God told me to kill my child!’
'What an incredible test of faith!' Or, do we think insane person? I guess it depends on if you read it in a 'book' or in a newspaper, huh?
@impiouspuppy "How can anyone know that God exists?"
And how can anyone be certain that God does NOT exist? Have you explored every inch of the universe, every dimension of time and space, and found God no where? Perhaps you missed him on your journey. Maybe he was elsewhere from you position and you kept missing him all the way along. Of course you haven't carefully searched every inch of the universe, yet you believe God does not exist while many others believe he does.
@TavrenElkair Again, you are almost a study in fallacious argument and specious reasoning. Fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. Can you prove my sandwich isn't magic, that my milk carton doesn't answer prayers (it's does, tho the answers are 'yes, no, and maybe'; just like God's!) It's amazing what deluded people like you ignore to deny evolution, and the gossamer web you weave to maintain belief.
"While many others believe. . .", which fallacy is that? Oh, yes, argumentum ad populum.
@impiouspuppy "You claim an 'evidence based faith'. That is a contradiction of terms."
It is NOT a contradiction of terms. If an over weight adult were standing on a burning roof and a small child down below said, "Jump! I'll catch you!" the adult on the roof analyzes the situation and evidence from personal experience and knowledge and decides that to put faith in the child's ability to catch him is fallacious. This is "evidence based reasoning for faith or non-faith".
@impiouspuppy Now if a strong team of firemen are below holding out a safety net and they shout, "Jump! We'll catch you!" To have faith in the firemen's ability to catch you is NOT insane or wrong. Sure, there's a chance something could go wrong, but your knowledge, understanding, and analysis of the situation tells you that putting your trust (faith) in the firemen is rational and logical. That is what "evidence based faith" is all about. :-)
@TavrenElkair Isaac Asimov was known for his fear of flying. The chances of dying in an airplane crash, even for a frequent flyer, are miniscule. But people DO die in airplane crashes. Faith is not about the rational, it is about the irrational, and acknowledging the irrational does not make it rational. Knowledge, understanding, and analysis tell you that the hypothesis of God is false, yet people still believe. Does that make an irrational rationale?
@impiouspuppy "Isaac Asimov was known for his fear of flying. The chances of dying in an airplane crash, even for a frequent flyer, are miniscule."
All that shows is that a person can be well informed and still be emotionally motivated to reject rational arguments (which is partly what these debates are about and demonstrate on both sides).
@impiouspuppy So then I guess an "irrational faith or belief" would be one that does not have or consider the evidences at play, or that allows ones emotions to override the more analytical and logical parts of the human mind. A truly "blind faith", or an intentionally "blind faith", is then an irrational faith, just as ignorant faith is irrational.
@impiouspuppy The Evolutionist also practices "evidence based faith", faith in Neo-Darwinism and scientific naturalism. Based on the evidences and analysis of the evidences, the Evolutionist believes that the assertion that all life evolved from a single-celled organism is true, despite having never witness that event happening himself. The person has faith (trust) that it is true anyway, because he believes the evidence supports this position.
@TavrenElkair There is no such thing as 'evidence based faith', again a contradiction of terms. 'Evidence' and 'faith' are on opposite sides of a spectrum.
It's refreshing to see that you are just another creationist that totally ignores the crux of the issue. Yeah, that was sarcasm. This probably goes right over your head, but there's a difference between dismissing what you say because one thinks you're an idiot, or thinking you're an idiot *because* of what you say. I'm firmly in the later.
@impiouspuppy "There is no such thing as 'evidence based faith', again a contradiction of terms. 'Evidence' and 'faith' are on opposite sides of a spectrum."
No they are not opposite sides of the spectrum. Faith on its own for the mere purpose of being faithful no matter the evidence... THAT is called "blind faith". Faith that INCLUDES evidence as a supporting framework for its rational expression and realization through logical means and probability is "evidence based faith".
@impiouspuppy "There is no such thing as 'evidence based faith', again a contradiction of terms. 'Evidence' and 'faith' are on opposite sides of a spectrum."
You have stated that there is no such thing as "evidence based faith". This statement on its own does little to further your assertion of this claim, so I request some refutation of my examples given to show how they do not support rational analysis or faith. How is the jumper not practicing logical evidence-based faith?
@TavrenElkair 'Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.' 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.' Acknowledging an irrational belief does not make it rational.
Faith in the fireman's net, vs.faith in God. Fallacy of equivocation.
Seriously, why don't you idiots place the same level of evidence on God as you do on evolution? Oh, right; it would destroy your *faith* in God.
@impiouspuppy "It *is* hard to discuss when you make up your own definition of what evidence is."
This, coming against the person who has regularly used the dictionary definitions in order to clarify word usage... Its interesting that the common atheistic response is to attack my character with unusual or baseless accusations rather than try and refute my arguments or points. I think that probably has significant meaning behind it. A "Kill the messenger," tactic.
@TavrenElkair "rational evidence based arguments" more like just ignoring science because it makes the baby jesus cry. As a creationist that is your motto after all isn't it?
@youhazapinecone "more like just ignoring science because it makes the baby jesus cry."
If anyone were to read or review the pages of comments on here, they would see quite the opposite from what you've stated above. I believe this is probably why you've resorted to increasing the insult level on top of what you were already posting. Unfortunately you are simply compounding upon the pre-existing problem. I suggest refuting the points instead of simply resorting to insult.
@youhazapinecone ""rational evidence based arguments" more like just ignoring science because it makes the baby jesus cry. As a creationist that is your motto after all isn't it?"
Not at all. I love science and accept science that is credible, well understood, and widely proven to be accurate and true. I do not, however, accept interpretations upon the science that the science itself does not quantify. Purely naturalistic explanations have not and do not work with life's origin
@youhazapinecone "more like just ignoring science because it makes the baby jesus cry."
I have discussed Amino Acids, Proteins, Nucleic Acids (DNA and RNA), the ways in which Proteins are formed by translation of DNA by RNA. I have discussed the odds of Proteins, DNA, and RNA coming together by chance. I have talked about the three major scientific theories about the explanations for the origins of the first single-celled organism...
@youhazapinecone I've talked about Ozone, pre-biotic earth's atmosphere, the Miller-Urey experiment, the instability of Amino Acids, the ordered sequence of Proteins and DNA, the fact that UV light and water hydrolysis destroys the building blocks of life unless some form of selective protection exists. I've mentioned time scales, molecular affinities, potential chemical laws of order, radiometric dating, mutational meltdown, decay and drift... The list of science goes on and on
@youhazapinecone I've listed dictionary definitions, wikipedia definitions, scientific definitions from scientific journals and articles. I've reference peer reviewed articles and published books. I've given quotations from scientists that hold PhDs and are associated with various major universities. A substantial amount of the information, evidences, arguments and points that I've presented here and below other OFNF's videos have been scientific and logical in fact and basis.
See, Evolutionism and Abiogenesis get a "free pass" on inferring and/or assuming something to be true based on accumulated related evidences. However the very cores of these beliefs are yet unproven. They have to be accepted and believed on faith. That perhaps "one day in the future", science will be able to answer those questions or reproduce what nature supposedly did without intelligent direction. Yet the people who adhere to this, attack those that don't, on the basis that "faith is bad".
If scientists are able to accomplish both of those monumental tasks, through their own great intelligence, intentional direction, scientific knowledge and modern technology, THEN they'll have made a very significant step towards proving the plausible reality of Abiogenesis and Evolutionism having been true.
Then they'll have to prove that those same things can happen WITHOUT mankind's purposeful intelligent direction and involvement manipulating the process.
Ridiculous, right? Yup it is, and that's the whole point. You cannot adhere to a belief and concept from the NATURALISTIC standpoint if the cores of those beliefs can't be reproduced by natural science, whether intelligently directed or otherwise. The fact that such a concept or expectation is considered to be so mind bogglingly ridiculous is evidence itself of the insubstantial nature of it all. :-)
Scientists must be able to genetically engineer a new unique novel form of life that is not easily and simply categorized or recognizable as another natural life form. A platypus is a good example of the type of unique "mixed bag" of life that needs to be engineered by scientists. Simply breeding a slight variation on an already existing life form is not sufficient.
Scientists need to be able to construct a living functional cell from non-living molecular components. They need to be able to build all the buildings blocks (the Amino Acids, Proteins, Nucleic Acids, etc.) and assemble them together to create a functional living cell, from the ground up.
Essentially, since Abiogenesis and Evolutionism are asserted to be entirely real and Naturalistic, there are two very major accomplishments that scientists must do in order for these theories to be absolutely convincing...
Such chemical affinities and self ordering have been one of the leading arguments and hopes of scientists involved in the ideas surrounding Abiogenesis because without such realities, there's no reason for Amino Acids or Nucleotides to form in the ordered way they exist within Proteins and DNA (and RNA). Unfortunately, science has shown again and again that this hoped for explanation does not work with Amino Acids and the molecules involved in Nucleotides. There's no combination affinity.
If you don't understand the idea behind Chemical Affinities and Self Ordering, it's basically the idea that certain atoms and molecules are more likely to combine with each other instead of other atoms and molecules, based on the natural ease of those combinations (bonding) taking place. Though it is NOT magnetism, magnetism is a good example of the ideas at play. Two magnets attract each other together. A magnet and non-magnet, however, do not, as an example.
3) Chemical Affinities and Self Ordering. This idea is that the nature of the molecules themselves will inherently combine and order themselves naturally without any need for direction or control mechanisms to help them along. An example of "self ordering" and combination affinities is salt. The molecules involved are automatically likely to join in a repetitive and repeating order (crystallizing). Science has proven that this idea also fails. Proteins and Nucleotides do NOT self assemble.
There are three major speculations or theories in science with regards to life arising from non-life.
1) Random chance. This idea has been so clearly debunked that few, if any, scientists today will even suggest it. The odds are way too impossible.
2) Natural Selection. But Natural Selection only works upon survival and reproduction. It can't help on the molecular level. The DNA still has to come from somewhere first in order to reproduce and start the mutation processes...
A hypothetical example of this sort of thing in play would be a scientist and psychologist deciding to study chimpanzees to better understand the development of social structures within prehistoric man. Note that from the very beginning, Evolutionism (our evolving from chimpz) is an already predetermined "fact". So then is it any wonder that the outcome of such a study would also align with Evolutionary thinking, no matter the outcome?
Belief or personal opinion, perspective (etc.) does not itself mean that a conclusion is not valid. However the beliefs and personal opinions (speculations, assumptions, etc.) need to be separated out from the data and analysis in order to get a solid foundation first, THEN you can re-introduce the interpretive methods and see where it leads and why. This helps differentiate between the real facts and the interpreted "facts" that might be valid, or might not be.
What OFNF, myself, and others from our stand point are saying (with regards to Evolutionism, etc.) is that the problem is not usually the scientific data itself, but the interpretation of that data. To put it mathematically, (Data + Interpretation = Conclusion). Real science should be heavily backed up by the evidences and lots of data and a lot less based on Interpretation and pre-determined belief. That's what we argue has been lost with regards to Evolutionism.
What I'm saying is that many of the evidences being shown here that are problematic for Evolutionism ARE based in science, not only religion. To argue that a person's religious beliefs automatically rule out that person having a valid scientific point is itself not valid. By such a statement, nothing anyone ever says could be trusted at all, because everyone has a worldview through which they interpret all things, even scientists. Real science is true science, no matter the source's beliefs.
@TavrenElkair "Real science is true science, no matter the source's beliefs."
For instance, if an atheist calculates 2+2=4, is that more accurate and valid than if a Christian also calculates 2+2=4? No, of course not. Because the data itself is not changed dependent upon the actual beliefs or perceptions of the person performing the calculation.
Essentially, all the required chemical reactions to produce all the necessary "building blocks" and "components" from bottom to top (for a single living cell) is well beyond a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (etc.) perfectly ordered reactions. Then if you consider all the perfect environmental conditions required, which at the very least add up to thousands upon thousands... There's just NO way! It isn't at all possible!
9) A single living cell uses THOUSANDS of DIFFERENT Proteins and Enzymes to do what it does (needs to) to survive. Each of the 2 key features of life (Metabolism, Reproduction) require hundreds of different Proteins each, and require enough quantities of all 20 Amino Acids essential for life to build those required critical Proteins.
I could go on all the way up the line pointing out big gaping holes in Abiogenesis (chemical evolution), and even continue right on up through Evolutionism itself.
7) But DNA and RNA are far more complex than even a typical Protein, so you end up with an even WORSE problem of "Where did RNA and DNA, the instructions for Protein building, come from?" Since they too can't form by natural non-living processes. Their odds are hundreds of times worse than Proteins, which are already way beyond impossible.
8) None of these molecules can survive on a planet without a protective Ozone layer. Yet the atoms that make up the Ozone layer destroy those molecules.
4) The odds of Amino Acids combining in exactly the write order to create a single Protein, even given absolutely perfect conditions and not counting the instability of Amino Acids themselves, are completely impossible.
5) Proteins are ONLY ever built (out of Amino Acids) by living cells using an instructional blue print from existing DNA.
6) That means that DNA, or at the very least RNA, must exist first and contain the correct combinations (info) in order to build Proteins.
1) The 20 Amino Acids that are required for even a single living cell cannot have formed on earth thanks to earth's atmosphere not containing the right required atoms, while also containing the wrong atoms that would instead prevent Amino Acids.
2) Amino Acids themselves are extremely unstable, constantly breaking down and/or making very "bad" combinations.
3) All Amino Acids used in life are "left handed" ONLY. Any Amino Acids that COULD MAYBE form are equally left and right handed.
To be perfectly honest, there are a ton of a major critical problems the faces the whole idea of Abiogenesis (life arising from non-living molecules). I've mentioned just a few of those problems, but there are MANY. This is a HUGE problem for Evolutionism because Evolutionism, and modern science, is based entirely on Naturalistic explanations, yet such explanations and reality cannot come anywhere close to generating the components of a single cell, never mind an actual living cell.
If you look at ANY scientific experiment that tries to generate Amino Acids in the lab without the use of living cells, you'll find that all of them either have special (intelligently designed and implemented) mechanisms in place that are used to "protect" or separate the Amino Acids from the harmful molecules and chemicals that these processes also create. This has to be done because otherwise the Amino Acids can't survive or remain true to form. Intelligent man has to intervene on their behalf
As I've already mentioned, Amino Acids are extremely unstable and constantly and easily fall apart and/or combine with all kinds of other atoms and molecules besides just other Amino Acids. This makes the coming together of a single Protein even MORE unlikely than the perfectly ideal conditions described in the 20^400 probability equation I've shown...
@impiouspuppy "Evolution theory has been called the most well understood and tested theory in science."
Really? Evolution is better understood and tested than all other major sciences and specific scientific understandings such as chemistry, physics, gravity, astronomy, electricity, magnetism, radioactivity, medicine, biology (not counting Evolutionism)... Our modern technological age would beg to differ with you. ;-)
@TavrenElkair Funny how you exclude evolution specifically, when it is intimately intertwined with chemistry, physics, medicine, and especially biology. Get real. If evolution was false then even an imbecile such as you could prove it wrong, no? Where is your proof? Paper after paper after paper AFTER paper, etcetera, has been published that supports evolution. Where is the evidence that opposes evolution? Oh! Maybe it's in the Bible!
@impiouspuppy While science does not not work strictly on consensus, chemistry, physics, gravity, astronomy, electricity, magnetism, radioactivity, medicine, biology, all these things are all products of scientific method; and in fact, disagree with you. All these fields, to varying degrees, support evolution. Perhaps you could take any one of them and describe how they support salvation through Christ? Maybe you could explain how Jesus sidestepped all of these, rose from the dead and ascended?
@impiouspuppy "all these things are all products of scientific method"
Interesting thing about the scientific method that you might or might not know. The "father" of the "Scientific Method" was Robert Grosseteste, a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church. Roger Bacon, a Christian and one of Grosseteste's followers, strongly advocated the common use of the Scientific Method. Kind of counters the typical atheistic argument that all religious people hate science. ;-)
@TavrenElkair Wow. Straw man much? Did you learn this from OFNF, or is this just a common attribute of Bible thumpers? Seriously, the thing I find curious about religious folk, especially those who understand science, is why they don't apply what they know of science (scientific methodology) to religion. Sorry, but saying all atheists say that religious people hate science is like saying all religious people say atheists don't have any morals; both are easily disproven.
@impiouspuppy "Sorry, but saying all atheists say that religious people hate science is like saying all religious people say atheists don't have any morals"
I never said ALL atheists claim that religious people hate science. I simply stated that MANY say this, and that many comments on here have shown this to be true. It's not a straw man, because the evidences even here show that atheists like to make that exact argument.
@impiouspuppy "Sorry, but saying all atheists say that religious people hate science is like saying all religious people say atheists don't have any morals"
A correct position on the "morality" issue is not that Atheists have no morals, it's that they have no absolute basis for being moral. That's a significant difference. An atheist can certainly be a good person, but the ultimate decision to be such is entirely based upon their own personality or desire to do so and little else.
@impiouspuppy "Perhaps you could take any one of them and describe how they support salvation through Christ?"
Science support salvation through Christ?... That's a rather silly statement coming from a purely "scientific naturalistic" perspective. Did you want to discuss science or religion? Science, especially naturalistic science, cannot on its own advocate for personal salvation through Christ, which is a historical, spiritual and theological matter. Clearly.
@TavrenElkair Yes, it was meant as a silly comment, as it’s pretty obvious that ‘salvation’ is a strange concept from a naturalistic perspective.
Would I like to discuss science or religion?! I would LOVE to discuss science; but the issue here, in my eyes, is the dismissal of *science* *because* of religion. Yes, a theistic discussion is a theological matter, void of science. Clearly.
@impiouspuppy "If evolution was false then even an imbecile such as you could prove it wrong, no? Where is your proof?"
Not sure if you've read over previous comments on here or in other threads of Onceforgivennowfree's videos. If you had, you'd see there is plenty of proof that Evolution doesn't work, and major problematic holes in the whole idea. If you'd like, I could repeat them all and more again for you. We may be here a while though ;-)
@TavrenElkair Yes, I have read them. No need repeating them, either, I'm not a believer of the idiom 'a lie repeated often enough. . .'
I’ve also read (and written) comments that show the errors in his videos, the constant and obvious straw manning, and such bad misrepresentations it’s hard not to believe OFNF isn’t simply *lying* through his teeth.
@impiouspuppy If ANY of the holes OFNF poke in evolution were true or bared out by the evidence, Matt could be FAMOUS if he’d just submit one paper! Science doesn’t demonize when you prove a theory false, it’s called revolution and it’s celebrated because it increases our knowledge of the world and universe.
@impiouspuppy "If ANY of the holes OFNF poke in evolution were true or bared out by the evidence"
They are, as OFNF and myself have partly demonstrated. Though these are considered serious problems for scientists, who even admit this themselves, they still believe that these things must have happened by naturalistic means entirely because their methodology and scientific philosophy dictates it must be so. That means despite the big holes, they still believe, though they can't fully explain it.
Oh thats not true.Information can easily come via mutation.Ever wondered why you can see so many colours?Only 3 celltypes are needed.And guess what they are all only slightly different from each other so that the pigments inside have a slightly different form which explains different absorption spectrums.Seems pretty beneficial that this "mistake" happened right?Just to name one
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
I saw a Hollow Earther (a person who believes the earth is hollow and there are cities on the inside) quote a geologist saying "He said that an earthquake causes the earths plates to ring 'like a bell' well, a bell is hollow!"
What if he asked the geologist
"given that the earth rings like a bell, what justification do you have in saying it isn't hollow!" That is what is happening here.
The stars could be said to be "information" about the season, like a language, but only metaphorically.
CorndogMaker 1 week ago
That was a cute strawman you came up with at the end there. "If it only had a brain."
CrimsonVoid 2 weeks ago
you are attepting to disprove evolution based on semantics?
thereisnoTH 3 weeks ago
If you Creationist Fan boys got any sense of honesty, go watch the original videos, and check the sources. Launching your well known prefabricated arguments, stolen from Creation.com, just ain't cutting it in this century anymore. Grow up, either know what you are talking about, or go pray some.
ONESPECIES 4 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES
lol still doing a lot of... what was it that you said? oh yes, "Boo hoo" ing?
Matt you jerk, picking on poor ONESPECIES.
DiscipleTube1 4 weeks ago
Are you trying to be this bad, or is it indeed that bad? The "Libraries of Information" refers to the actual Libraries. They won't fit here, go read them. Also, what I explain here is the difference between how Scientists say Information and mean inheritable traits, while ID proponents say Information and mean Personal Intelligence Made It. Which is worlds apart. But hey, no need to be honest at all. BTW, sentences make sence between 2 periods. Chopping 4 second segments is not responding. Byes.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
@ONESPECIES
Your rebuttal is to tell me to go read libraries? Are you serious?
And you are wrong about information (suprise!). Evo's and ID proponents BOTH understand that DNA codes for life. The debate is not over whether it contains information or not - any scientist who knows anything about biology KNOWS that DNA contains information. This is a serious scientific mistake on your part.
Maybe these 15 questions were too difficult for the Evo's? Your faith is now exposed!
onceforgivennowfree 4 weeks ago 4
@onceforgivennowfree A) what you call information is not what Scientists call information. Creationists call information what they suppose displays signs of Intelligence. Scientists call information what the dictionary says: The stuff you collect by observation! You clowns do not even fucking know what information means. And listen kid, You can;t ask any one if they are serious. You do not like the answer "libraries" but you find the useless "God Did it" great. What method can be based on that?
ONESPECIES 4 weeks ago 2
@ONESPECIES
yeah because "it's a weird molecule" is completely useful. LOL!
I love how you Darwinist love to oversimplify creationist beliefs to "God did it" like you have made some kind of point. Our belief in God is actually a best case scenario based on much philosophical proofs, the Christian God based on historical and internal and external accuracies and consistencies, and what you call "God did it" is the mound of scientific evidence consistently matching the creation account.
DiscipleTube1 4 weeks ago
@DiscipleTube1 Boo hoo. The difference between Evolution and Creationism is that In one youtube video one can not fit more than a millionth of the info of Evolutionary Biology and its seperate fields of Study. But all the stupidity of Creationism can easily fit in a 2 minute video or in a phrase.God did it. And what does history have to do with anything?Go treat a virus with a history book, or even better with "God did it", and you will find out why Biology & Medicine are not based on old books.
ONESPECIES 4 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES
"Boo hoo"
yeah you've been doing a lot of crying, I'm glad your finally pointing it out.
You can stack dung as high and as wide as you want; it's still a pile of dung. Guess what, plenty of Christian people utilizing their Christian worldview have developed medical technology to save lives. You've tried to feed me this garbage before. Stop comparing a debate of ORIGINS with treatments in the observable present. Its ridiculous and it makes you look foolish.
DiscipleTube1 4 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES
You can claim that Creationists are stupid, but you are getting pwned by them :P
Louis Pasteur came up with germ theory, and he was a Creationist. No need for Darwinian nonsense. Or how about the inventor of the MRI? Also a Creationists.
onceforgivennowfree 4 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree Louis Pasteur? Well if you so desperate for expert opinnion why don't you ask today's experts? You know that we have even better people doing what Pasteur did too, and nowadays. You know it right?We call them Sci-en-tists. But you see Germs would not be much of a problem, if the "Holy Books" mentioned that apart from fish and animals and the sky, "God" "created" also some invisible dangerous stuff. So why don;t we all wash ourselve with pigeon blood like the Bible says?
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES
Or how about Eanrst Chair, 1945 Nobel Prize for penicillin. Heres what he has to say about evolution: "A very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory … I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’
That's right....no need for your Darwin faith!
You can keep denying that DNA contains information, but that wont make your fairy tale true!
onceforgivennowfree 4 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree Yeah, I got an idea, stop a taxi driver, and ask him if he accepts the facts evolution, and if he does not, well, Hello Creationism! Listen, stop fooling yourself and people already. You find these fucking unimportant quotes, and you ignore the whole body of peer reviewed Science of today. Its simply pathetic.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES
Can you please provide a source for the claim that Creationists call information "that which displays signs of intelligence"? The 15 questions pamphlet did not state this. You are making a mistake between the definition of information, and it's cause. Yes, I believe that intelligence is the only adequate cause of information, but I don't define information as "that which displays signs of intelligence". I define it the same way as anyone else....a message, a code, etc
onceforgivennowfree 4 weeks ago
@onceforgivennowfree Are you kidding me? Its both an Intelligence Design and a Creationist Mantra that information is unmistakeable sign of a "creator/designer" Intelligence. Why patronize me? You already know Stephen Meyer swears by this, and I know you got his photo under your pillow. And Again, you conflict with your own oppinions. "I define it the same way as anyone else....a message, a code, etc" but "Yes, I believe that intelligence is the only adequate cause of information". LOL at that.
ONESPECIES 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
benfaust 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ONESPECIES The Laws of Information do not come from creationist sources. They state that information comes from an intelligent source. It is not defined by material substances, but requires intelligence to create and to understand. If no one and no thing understands or ever understood the arrangement of matter to have meaning, then it is not information. Information is the transference of what can be understood, and understanding requires intelligence.
benfaust 4 weeks ago
@benfaust A magnetized rock, preserves information of the magnetic field that magnetized it. Is that rock Intelligent then? Laws of Information deal with Information, Biology deals with Genetics. But when Information Scientists do actually study the DNA, they do often point out the distinctive features it has that seperate it from information that ccame from an agents. For DNA, "information", means molecular structures that carry traits. It does not mean what Creationists would like it mean.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES And yet the agents which duplicate the DNA have to understand that information, including the "EOF" marker, and recreate a protein based upon that encoded information. For only one part in that sequence to have accidentally happened is nearly impossible. For all of them to happen and work together almost flawlessly by mere unguided chance is irrational. Information in DNA is beyond random bit of "information". It is a complex series of instructions upon which agents act.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust Sorry sir, are you insane? What do you mean by: "the agents which duplicate the DNA have to understand that information"? Understand means "To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp". How can you confuse Biochemical processes with understanding? Whats next? Talking bacteria? The processes of DNA are biochemical buddy, and we call them information when we study them. They are components reactive in nature, not thinking agents.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES The DNA is reproduced, and that reproduction (RNA) is then converted into protein. According to Atheist evolutionists, YOU are a series of biochemical processes.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust You are disappointingly uneducated on the matter, and thats not the bad thing. The bad thing, is you expect the Universities of the world to bow before your ignorance. Well good luck with that. As far as I am concerned, I was just explaining the confused way Creationists understand the word information. They even quote Dawkins, and they ignore Dawkins never means information to be : "Intelligent Designer Evidence". So quit it already.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
benfaust 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ONESPECIES Will do. Since you're just a series of biochemical process (which you cannot deny), then you obviously have no intelligence. What you say therefore means absolutely nothing. It's just a random array of meaningless junk. (By your own reasoning, not mine.) The arrogant fool responds to things he cannot answer with insults and indirect statements of self-superiority. As you said, biochemical processes cannot understand.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust The only one here possesing no intelligence is you buddy. OMFG! You are insane. Listen dude, humans got Brains, which indeed work biochemicaly but have specific fucntions that host intelligence. I am sorry to break the news to your uneducated ears, but the internal organs of the cell, do not have brains of their own. And thats what you claimed, that the "agents" thatduplicate DNA think. You compare a trillion neuron Brain, with one part of only one cell. You are certainly clueless.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES A brain is the only organ that can host intelligence? Have you seen the process through which DNA is copied into RNA and then the code is decoded and produces a protein? Pasteur demonstrated a long time ago that life comes only from life of its own kind. If you want to believe the myth of macro evolution, which defies the laws of physics, information, and biology, feel free to do so. But don't call other people insane or uneducated who demand those laws be fulfilled.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust Whatever dude, just get your meds. For more go ask a fucking Biologist. But you won't do that cause he would have to shutter your fantasies in seconds. Yeah buddy, okays, cells have brains, Pasteur said bacteria had a brain, yeah yeah,brains everywhere, for the Insane. Dude you can;t even speak English. You say brain is not the only organ hosting intelligence, and then you about life coming from life. How is that related? I will tell how, you take meth and go on the internet, stop it.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES No point in trying to carry on a conversation with someone who throws a insult-filled fit every time someone responds in a way that doesn't please him. You may be highly intelligent, but your outbursts make you sound like a total idiot.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES Have you read the response you just submitted? I can't even speak English? If you can't see how the things I said are related, you have a serious comprehension issue, and there's no point in trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with you. You said, among other things, "You say brain is not the only organ hosting intelligence, and then you about life coming from life." I can't speak English? Really... Let's not argue intelligence or I.Q.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust YEah you are right, you can speak english, I was wrong, the problem is you can't think. You fly from one unrelated issue to the next, you spout inaccuracies, and never respond to my points at all. You just come up with new outdated and invalidated quotes every time, like you just landed in the discussion. You ignore basic facts, like that enzymes and proteins or organelles do not have a mind of their own. All the facts at hand show you are the one not worth having a conversation with.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES You really think I can't think because I brought up a point of view that disagrees with yours. I have responded to all of your points. As for "basic facts," you haven't really brought any into the discussion. If you just want to argue with people, have at it. If you want to have an intellectual discussion, let's do it like mature adults, and lay off the infantile name calling and insults.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust HA! Ok, look if YOU want to have an intellectual discussion, you must have 2 things: Have a basic understanding of what the certified experts say on the issue you will tackle, and also be ready to employ your intellectual honesty. Even here you claim you answered all of my points. Like? Hahahaha. See? You are all about big words about maturity, but in essense you can't be mature your self.Above all you have the audacity to think all the world's Universities ignore something you know.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES I'm not going to replicate our discussion to prove that I've said what I've said. I'm glad you think you're so intellectually superior. Actually, I'm not. It's sad for you. Go attack someone your own size. I don't play mind games with idiots.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust I am not intellectually superior, I just do not make claims against professional scientists and beyond my expertise, and those claims that I do make, are already proven by Scientists. What you do not get is that the proponents of Science in youtube do not make new claims. We just simplify mainstream science, in the hope some of you guys might get it. I am not playing mindgames. If I did, I could find invalidated quotes and throw them at you like you did. Study some actual biology.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES If you take a long look at science, you'll see that scientists who promote macro evolution do so by promoting assumptions to create their conclusions that everything came from nothing. Laws of physics, information, and biology seriously conflict with the theory of macro evolution. The fact that people who don't want to believe there is a God approach the data with erroneous presuppositions doesn't impress me. Many brilliant people in history strongly oppose Darwinism.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust Hahaha, you laughable charachter. As I said, go study some real Biology. If you do not wan't to because it conflicts with your narrow faith, remember that most Christians accept the facts of Evolution. And if you do not like that either, you are welcome to exit the activity of commenting about Biology all together. Right now what you do is quote made up non-arguements like a Creationist parrot. Be my guest, but you ain;t changing what all Universities in the world teach sucka. Byes.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES Tell that to Pasteur. He was a creationist. In fact, that's why he made the discoveries he did (while being strongly opposed by evolutionists). He's known as the father of microbiology and immunology. I guess he needs to go study some real biology too. Despite what you might think, macro evolution is NOT a proven fact, and many observable phenomena shed serious doubt on it. But you're right, both I and the ignorant father of microbiology need to go study some biology.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust dude, just quite already. And Klisthenes is the father of democracy, but he owned slaved, should we too? Democritus was a Pagan, and he was the first to conceive of the atom. Not to Mention that Newton believed the Bible had apocryphal messages and spells for demons and spirits. Should we believe that cause the Gravity man did? Listen, Science is a great method, cause it does not depend on one person, but bodies of evidence. You can quote your ass off, that wont change, thankfully.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES I mentioned Pasteur's belief in creationism because it's very relevant. You said I need to study some real biology because I believe in creationism and therefore am ignorant on the subject of biology. And yet the greatest biologist in history believed in creationism as well, so that belief is obviously not due to a lack of biological knowledge. Yes, science is a great method, because it calls us to question unproven theories, like evolution.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust You demonstrate a huge disability to understand anything about Science. Newton was the greatest Physics mind,until part of his theory had to be changed to better describe the facts.And Einstein who became the greatest then, gave his place to the next generation which added quantum physics on the table. Pasteur, is OUTDATED, in every shape and form possibly relevant to actual active modern science. And even if he believed in fairies,what matters is what he proved, not what he believed.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES Pasteur's work is far from outdated. It continues to save countless lives. The reason it's relevant is because he demonstrated that life comes only from life, which caused major problems for the idea of origin of life from non-life. Yes, it mattes what he proved, and that was a major one, which remains true to this day. By the way, there's no need to place insults in each response: "You demonstrate a huge disability," "you laughable character," "you can't think." Sheesh.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust The names I call you are properties you exhibit. You try to overtake scientific facts that have millions of pages of research behind them with simple catch phrases. Like "Life comes only from Life". Not only that you have the audacity of a moron to add "which caused major problems for the idea of origin of life from non-life". Evolution not only explains microorganisms, it also explains what we have to do to fight them now that penicilin is failing on highly evolved microorganisms.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES If you say so. "Life comes from life" is a fact, not a "catch phrase." It doesn't matter if you don't like it. Penicillin fails on microorganisms which previously weren't resistant due to lateral gene transfer from other microorganisms which are already resistant. There is no creation of new genetic information -- it is already there. It's not "evolution," it's gene sharing, which is quite a different matter altogether.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust As I told you before, if that flamboyant display of misinformation is your best shot, you better quit talking about evolution, and go make somebody a sandwitch or pray some. You rediculous Creation.com Zombie.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES You keep replying to things I say by saying it's misinformation, then throwing in a few insults, instead of giving an intelligent rendering of how what I've said is supposedly false. You seem much better at insulting others than in carrying on a mature, intelligent, profitable conversation. It would help if you didn't treat others as though they are beneath you. After all, they're not. I hope you realize that.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust Yeah, cause naturally, Its fully possible to go through the Entire Theory of Evolution, its evidence, and the arguments of the opposition, in this comment section, with 500 character exchanges. HAHAHA. Then you ask me why I call you mildly insane. An intelligent conversation goes like this. You go right now and spend about 1-2 years, educating yourself on what exactly Evolution is, and based on what evidence. And if you still disagree,but do know the subject,we will have a great time.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
@ONESPECIES I've already done that. You obviously just want to get in the last word, since you keep bothering to reply to things you can't or won't answer, providing only verbal abuse. That being the case, I'll let you have the last word. Hit me with your best shot of childish insults.
benfaust 3 weeks ago
@benfaust Childish Insults? Dude, I have read Creation.Com, I have watched "Does God Exist ?", I have seen all the repetitive Creationist material, and all you have done, is memorize all that. And THAT, has in the court of law be found to NOT BE SCIENCE. I meant spend 2 years on actual Evolutionary Biology. The peer reviewed kind. If you don;t wanna do that, tough shit, one more person chooses to go uneducated to the grave. You won't be the first. Its common. The damage is you spread this stuff.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago 2
The problem for Neo-Darwinism is that there is no known mechanism by which new functional genetic information and traits can be generated. When you look at the genetic level, the DNA, mutations are deleterious. They corrupt or remove genetic information. They do not add entirely new traits and genes to it. The reason this is the case is because DNA is a system of "specified complexity". It is instructions for particular molecular outcomes and constructions. Copy errors do not improve DNA.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair i agree that is does not "improve" DNA, however, it is possible that a random mutation could be beneficial to an organism. in nature, it is survival of the fittest, if the mutation is not beneficial to the creature, or hurts it, it will not pass on it's DNA therefore the faulty genetics do not get passed on. but if the mutation gives it an advantage, it will pass on it's DNA and it's children will have the mutation,
rudolfs0891 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair the problem of Neo-Creationists is they can't read books, and when they can its the ones the crackpots make.
ONESPECIES 3 weeks ago
Has anyone here read "Signature In The Cell" by Stephen C. Meyers? I'm reading it right now. Very interesting. It's all about DNA and the information/instructions within it.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
What kind of answer is this, no freaking Biologist would say something like that. Mutations don't have to be harmful some are, but how mutations explain the diversity of life is that species seperation coupled with mutation and enviroment that mutation is useful in can form different species.
slicingwater 1 month ago
@slicingwater "Mutations don't have to be harmful some are, but how mutations explain the diversity of life is that species seperation coupled with mutation and enviroment that mutation is useful in can form different species."
The vast majority of genetic mutations are deleterious (a loss or corruption of genetic information). If I lost a leg, I'd more than likely get better at hopping than I was before. Adaptation to environment and conditions is fine, but it has great limitations.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Well unlike our primate cousins we have two chromosomes that fused together and were doing better than okay. The weird shape of the Hammer head shark was the direct result of a mutation, which greatly enhanced their ability to find pray through electromagnetism. Well if you were born with out legs, and your whole town of five million were cut off and forced to live in caves where legs were useless and harmful overall then your mutation would be beneficial in that enviroment.
slicingwater 1 month ago
@slicingwater The examples you listed are potentially viable as examples of beneficial mutations, however the idea that these things were in fact mutations caused by evolution is an extrapolation or something inferred instead of witnessed or experimentally tested. For instance, you could argue that dinosaurs evolving into birds is also a beneficial mutation, however that is an unwitnessed and unverified assertion of evolutionism from the start.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair What do you means potentially viable, these things happened, caused by evolution, its the other way around mutations caused the evolution of these species coupled with natural selection. Birds are Dinosaurs, where do you think scientist figured that from the paleontology record.
slicingwater 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I guess in the end it comes down to a person's perception of faith in general, and certain faith specifically. I believe reasonable faith is evidence based, you (seem to) believe that faith is NOT reasonable and by its very nature can NOT be evidence based. So very obviously we completely disagree. As with the issues of Abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinism, it's just another disagreement to add to the pile. It shouldn't be surprising that an atheist would consider "rational faith" an impossibility.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
Here's another thought, can faith itself be evidence? It certainly can. If person A has faith in person B's honesty, than Person A's belief or assertion that Person B is honest is evidence of that honesty. Unless of course Person A is incorrect and has misplaced faith in Person B. However, Person A's assertion of faith in Person B is still evident, whether misplaced or otherwise. Now if multiple people have faith in Person B's integrity, that is evidence that Person B's integrity really is true.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair This is the best example of Poe's Law that I've ever personally seen. There is no point in continuing this exchange as you are either a f***ing idiot, or you are trolling. You have stated some really stupid shit, but this really takes the cake.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@impiouspuppy "You have stated some really stupid shit, but this really takes the cake."
And yet you have not refuted my statements very well if at all. Your "refutation" consists of, "You're an idiot." It's a common theme coming from atheists against all Creationists. I guess its easier than actually putting forth constructive counter arguments. I could even personally construct more substantial arguments against my points than you guys have. You're not even trying. You resort to name calling.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair
Faith is not evidence.
Sorry dude.
odinata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata If a person dies for a cause, or for the greater good, is the faith of that person in the greater good or that cause not evident by his or her actions? In that way, the person's actions are evidence of that person's faith or belief. So if evidence can be attributed to faith, belief, faithfulness, or trust, how can faith be entirely disconnected from evidence? No one has shown how this is not so. They've simply stated "You're an idiot," or "Faith is not evidence." Nothing more.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@odinata i know not of one apologist who would think that faith alone proves evidence.
FongLin100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FongLin100
"can faith itself be evidence? It certainly can."
the apologist on this very page.
odinata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FongLin100 Faith alone certainly does not prove evidence. Faith, however, can be itself an evidence, though a rather circumstantial one depending on the situation. And the argument is that faith can be evidence-based (as in, based in large part or even minor part on supporting evidences), not that faith is absolutely without doubt or question based entirely on evidence. Certainly not. By its very nature, faith is an issue of trust and belief. Evidence, however, can build it.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
So is it possible for a person to both have faith or trust in something that is rational? Is it possible for a typically rational person to behave irrationally, or the other way around? If I have faith that the elevator at an apartment building will not kill me, how does one measure whether or not that faith is rational or irrational? You would do so by analyzing my methods of deduction and reasoning. Why do I trust the elevator? Does evidence or reason play a part in that trust?
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair You really have a hard-on for the equivocation fallacy, don't you? Because you fear something does not make irrational. How do you determine the rational from the irrational? E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E
Grow an 'effing brain. Learn. EVOLVE.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy Exactly! That's why an "evidence-based faith" is a "rational faith", and a blind faith is irrational. Faith is not inherently irrational, which is what you seem to be suggesting. It can be, but it does not have to be.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
I can't take anyone seriously who says "PWNAGE"....
riverlifeva 1 month ago
A single tRNA (transfer RNA) molecule can carry a single unique Amino Acid. Each of the tRNA molecules can only line up with one particular matching molecular "slot" in the mRNA within the Ribosomes. This is where and how the "translation" happens. The Protein is built in this way, one Amino Acid added after the other in sequence all along the line until the entire Protein has been built. And so, RNA (along with the Ribosomes) is critical to both the transcription and translation of DNA.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TavrenElkair "And so, RNA (along with the Ribosomes) is critical to both the transcription and translation of DNA." Sure, RNA is important for translation but that is not what you originally said. Also, ribosomes aren't critical to transcription.
youhazapinecone 1 month ago
RNA itself does not actually perform any of the "translation of DNA", however it is a critical component in the process since it copies the information in DNA and takes it to the Ribosomes (the "construction factory" of the cell). If you envision the data of the DNA that has been copied (transcribed) to mRNA (messenger RNA) like an array in computer programming, each "slot" of the single dimensional array contains information for a single Amino Acid. Building a Protein requires many "parts".
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair "RNA itself does not actually perform any of the "translation of DNA""
To clarify, RNA does not actually perform any of the "DNA Translation" ON ITS OWN. It also requires a Ribosomes, in most cases, and requires two types of RNA, mRNA and tRNA. :-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair
And none of it requires Jesus.
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata "And none of it requires Jesus."
lol I never said "DNA to mRNA to Ribosomes to tRNA to Protein = Jesus." But it's funny that you went in that direction. Does something inherent within this complex processes make you automatically connect the two together? :-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair You corrected your original mistake but it still seems you barely understand the basics of the central dogma. My point being if you hardly understand this what business do you have trying to have a conversation about evolution?
youhazapinecone 1 month ago
@youhazapinecone "You corrected your original mistake"
I clarified and detailed my generalized statement. RNA is essentially in the translation of DNA into Proteins. So my general statement still stands. DNA is translated by way of RNA. That was not false. The way I worded the one line "RNA itself does not actually perform any of the "translation of DNA" was incorrect and so I corrected it after noticing this. :-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair
There is no need for Jesus in biological processes.
Or Allah.
odinata 1 month ago 2
Wikipedia on DNA:
"The relationship between the nucleotide sequences of genes and the amino-acid sequences of proteins is determined by the rules of translation"
"In transcription, the codons of a gene are copied into messenger RNA by RNA polymerase. This RNA copy is then decoded by a ribosome that reads the RNA sequence by base-pairing the messenger RNA to transfer RNA
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
The crux of the issue is the interpretation of the data and the underlying philosophy behind that form of interpretation. Scientific naturalism demands the rejection of things such as God from the outset. Many scientists are still religious of course, but that still doesn't change the fact that they're predisposed to explain everything through material naturalistic means, even when they can't. Usually in these situations they'll admit not knowing with any certainty, but not always.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
1) "You even know what I know"... I know what you know? I can assume I might know what you know, but unless I actually do know what you know, then I do not really know what you know, but only thought I knew what you know.
2) "even when you're wrong about what I know"... So then I know what you know, even when I don't know what you know... It's logically impossible to both know and not know the same thing at the same time. So either I know it, or I do not. It can't be both.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair And therefore we can conclude you must be wrong, since you cannot know *and* not know. Unless you knew I would refute myself (at least according to you) and therefore you would know that you didn't know! Yep, you must be God.
Man, you have some airtight logic going for you. ;-)
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
I'm providing rational evidence based arguments here up for debate and analysis, comparison and available to be refuted, and all I'm getting in response is "you're an idiot, you're a liar." It really is quite hard to have any sort of discussion or debate when that's the sort of opposition you're left dealing with. But perhaps I should not be surprised. After all, this is YouTube.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Yes; you're here, this is YouTube. Where else could you claim to believe in God based on evidence without providing evidence, and then go on and on about evolution and abiogenesis not being true because it doesn't meet what you think constitutes evidence or fact. Oh, the irony!
It *is* hard to discuss when you make up your own definition of what evidence is.
It's not that I think you're an idiot and therefore ignore what you say, but rather what you say shows that you're an idiot.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy "Where else could you claim to believe in God based on evidence without providing evidence"
I have been providing arguments, points, evidences, counter arguments, and more. You however have neither countered my statements nor provided evidence to support your own stance or refute mine. You HAVE resorted to insults numerous times, however, so I guess in your playbook that counts for something. If you didn't believe it to be so, you would not keep falling back on it.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair And you have ignored a point I have made several times: if what you (or OFNF, or any other bible thumper) have said were true, then it could have and would have been published and falsified evolution. That's the way science works. You can throw up your little objections, make your pathetic arguments, tell your little lies, and ignore the VAST amounts of evidence that indeed support evolutionary theory. If what you said had any merit, biology books would be rewritten. Period.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@impiouspuppy "That's the way science works. You can throw up your little objections, make your pathetic arguments, tell your little lies, and ignore the VAST amounts of evidence that indeed support evolutionary theory. If what you said had any merit, biology books would be rewritten. Period."
Yes, you have called me a liar many times. This one probably pushes it beyond a dozen. I've also stated arguments against the total reliability of the peer review process as well.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy
Christianity and the Bible was actually intentionally removed from the public school system (at least in America) back a number of decades ago. Until that time, it had been an integral part of the curriculum. Back then I could have made your same argument but supporting Christianity.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy Your argument for implicitly trusting the peer review process, text books and scientific journals is what's called "begging to authority" or "begging to mass consensus". Such a system of pointing to authority figures and consensus can be as guilty of knowledge repression as discovery. An example would be the Roman Catholic church throughout the dark ages. They widely and regularly suppressed ideas that didn't match their own, yet for centuries people trusted their authority.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair You are mixing your fallacies. This is pretty funny, since you are almost a study in fallacious argument and specious reasoning. I do not 'implicitly trust' the peer review process; I understand how scientific methodology works, and peer review is only a part of the process. It is the way we know what we know. You claim an 'evidence based faith'. That is a contradiction of terms. How can anyone know that God exists? So far, there are only two ways, and neither involves evidence.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
1) God personally reveals Himself to you. 2) Someone tells you ‘God has revealed Himself to me’; or by extrapolation, you’re told through a book written by *someone*, who was told by someone, who was told by someone, etc, who said ‘God revealed Himself to me’. And what do we think of people that claim God speaks to them? ‘God told me to kill my child!’
'What an incredible test of faith!' Or, do we think insane person? I guess it depends on if you read it in a 'book' or in a newspaper, huh?
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy "How can anyone know that God exists?"
And how can anyone be certain that God does NOT exist? Have you explored every inch of the universe, every dimension of time and space, and found God no where? Perhaps you missed him on your journey. Maybe he was elsewhere from you position and you kept missing him all the way along. Of course you haven't carefully searched every inch of the universe, yet you believe God does not exist while many others believe he does.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Again, you are almost a study in fallacious argument and specious reasoning. Fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. Can you prove my sandwich isn't magic, that my milk carton doesn't answer prayers (it's does, tho the answers are 'yes, no, and maybe'; just like God's!) It's amazing what deluded people like you ignore to deny evolution, and the gossamer web you weave to maintain belief.
"While many others believe. . .", which fallacy is that? Oh, yes, argumentum ad populum.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@impiouspuppy "You claim an 'evidence based faith'. That is a contradiction of terms."
It is NOT a contradiction of terms. If an over weight adult were standing on a burning roof and a small child down below said, "Jump! I'll catch you!" the adult on the roof analyzes the situation and evidence from personal experience and knowledge and decides that to put faith in the child's ability to catch him is fallacious. This is "evidence based reasoning for faith or non-faith".
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy Now if a strong team of firemen are below holding out a safety net and they shout, "Jump! We'll catch you!" To have faith in the firemen's ability to catch you is NOT insane or wrong. Sure, there's a chance something could go wrong, but your knowledge, understanding, and analysis of the situation tells you that putting your trust (faith) in the firemen is rational and logical. That is what "evidence based faith" is all about. :-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Isaac Asimov was known for his fear of flying. The chances of dying in an airplane crash, even for a frequent flyer, are miniscule. But people DO die in airplane crashes. Faith is not about the rational, it is about the irrational, and acknowledging the irrational does not make it rational. Knowledge, understanding, and analysis tell you that the hypothesis of God is false, yet people still believe. Does that make an irrational rationale?
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy "Isaac Asimov was known for his fear of flying. The chances of dying in an airplane crash, even for a frequent flyer, are miniscule."
All that shows is that a person can be well informed and still be emotionally motivated to reject rational arguments (which is partly what these debates are about and demonstrate on both sides).
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy So then I guess an "irrational faith or belief" would be one that does not have or consider the evidences at play, or that allows ones emotions to override the more analytical and logical parts of the human mind. A truly "blind faith", or an intentionally "blind faith", is then an irrational faith, just as ignorant faith is irrational.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy The Evolutionist also practices "evidence based faith", faith in Neo-Darwinism and scientific naturalism. Based on the evidences and analysis of the evidences, the Evolutionist believes that the assertion that all life evolved from a single-celled organism is true, despite having never witness that event happening himself. The person has faith (trust) that it is true anyway, because he believes the evidence supports this position.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair There is no such thing as 'evidence based faith', again a contradiction of terms. 'Evidence' and 'faith' are on opposite sides of a spectrum.
It's refreshing to see that you are just another creationist that totally ignores the crux of the issue. Yeah, that was sarcasm. This probably goes right over your head, but there's a difference between dismissing what you say because one thinks you're an idiot, or thinking you're an idiot *because* of what you say. I'm firmly in the later.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy "There is no such thing as 'evidence based faith', again a contradiction of terms. 'Evidence' and 'faith' are on opposite sides of a spectrum."
No they are not opposite sides of the spectrum. Faith on its own for the mere purpose of being faithful no matter the evidence... THAT is called "blind faith". Faith that INCLUDES evidence as a supporting framework for its rational expression and realization through logical means and probability is "evidence based faith".
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy "There is no such thing as 'evidence based faith', again a contradiction of terms. 'Evidence' and 'faith' are on opposite sides of a spectrum."
You have stated that there is no such thing as "evidence based faith". This statement on its own does little to further your assertion of this claim, so I request some refutation of my examples given to show how they do not support rational analysis or faith. How is the jumper not practicing logical evidence-based faith?
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair 'Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.' 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.' Acknowledging an irrational belief does not make it rational.
Faith in the fireman's net, vs.faith in God. Fallacy of equivocation.
Seriously, why don't you idiots place the same level of evidence on God as you do on evolution? Oh, right; it would destroy your *faith* in God.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy "It *is* hard to discuss when you make up your own definition of what evidence is."
This, coming against the person who has regularly used the dictionary definitions in order to clarify word usage... Its interesting that the common atheistic response is to attack my character with unusual or baseless accusations rather than try and refute my arguments or points. I think that probably has significant meaning behind it. A "Kill the messenger," tactic.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair "rational evidence based arguments" more like just ignoring science because it makes the baby jesus cry. As a creationist that is your motto after all isn't it?
youhazapinecone 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@youhazapinecone "more like just ignoring science because it makes the baby jesus cry."
If anyone were to read or review the pages of comments on here, they would see quite the opposite from what you've stated above. I believe this is probably why you've resorted to increasing the insult level on top of what you were already posting. Unfortunately you are simply compounding upon the pre-existing problem. I suggest refuting the points instead of simply resorting to insult.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@youhazapinecone ""rational evidence based arguments" more like just ignoring science because it makes the baby jesus cry. As a creationist that is your motto after all isn't it?"
Not at all. I love science and accept science that is credible, well understood, and widely proven to be accurate and true. I do not, however, accept interpretations upon the science that the science itself does not quantify. Purely naturalistic explanations have not and do not work with life's origin
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@youhazapinecone "more like just ignoring science because it makes the baby jesus cry."
I have discussed Amino Acids, Proteins, Nucleic Acids (DNA and RNA), the ways in which Proteins are formed by translation of DNA by RNA. I have discussed the odds of Proteins, DNA, and RNA coming together by chance. I have talked about the three major scientific theories about the explanations for the origins of the first single-celled organism...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair "the ways in which Proteins are formed by translation of DNA by RNA."
youhazapinecone 1 month ago
@youhazapinecone I've talked about Ozone, pre-biotic earth's atmosphere, the Miller-Urey experiment, the instability of Amino Acids, the ordered sequence of Proteins and DNA, the fact that UV light and water hydrolysis destroys the building blocks of life unless some form of selective protection exists. I've mentioned time scales, molecular affinities, potential chemical laws of order, radiometric dating, mutational meltdown, decay and drift... The list of science goes on and on
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@youhazapinecone I've listed dictionary definitions, wikipedia definitions, scientific definitions from scientific journals and articles. I've reference peer reviewed articles and published books. I've given quotations from scientists that hold PhDs and are associated with various major universities. A substantial amount of the information, evidences, arguments and points that I've presented here and below other OFNF's videos have been scientific and logical in fact and basis.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
See, Evolutionism and Abiogenesis get a "free pass" on inferring and/or assuming something to be true based on accumulated related evidences. However the very cores of these beliefs are yet unproven. They have to be accepted and believed on faith. That perhaps "one day in the future", science will be able to answer those questions or reproduce what nature supposedly did without intelligent direction. Yet the people who adhere to this, attack those that don't, on the basis that "faith is bad".
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
If scientists are able to accomplish both of those monumental tasks, through their own great intelligence, intentional direction, scientific knowledge and modern technology, THEN they'll have made a very significant step towards proving the plausible reality of Abiogenesis and Evolutionism having been true.
Then they'll have to prove that those same things can happen WITHOUT mankind's purposeful intelligent direction and involvement manipulating the process.
THEN, they'll be factually valid.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair /facepalm
infinity730 1 month ago
@infinity730 "/facepalm"
Ridiculous, right? Yup it is, and that's the whole point. You cannot adhere to a belief and concept from the NATURALISTIC standpoint if the cores of those beliefs can't be reproduced by natural science, whether intelligently directed or otherwise. The fact that such a concept or expectation is considered to be so mind bogglingly ridiculous is evidence itself of the insubstantial nature of it all. :-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Not sure if trolling or really stupid. -_-
infinity730 1 month ago
Evolutionism needs:
Scientists must be able to genetically engineer a new unique novel form of life that is not easily and simply categorized or recognizable as another natural life form. A platypus is a good example of the type of unique "mixed bag" of life that needs to be engineered by scientists. Simply breeding a slight variation on an already existing life form is not sufficient.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Okay, this is interesting. Explain how would this support evolution.
youhazapinecone 1 month ago
Abiogenesis needs:
Scientists need to be able to construct a living functional cell from non-living molecular components. They need to be able to build all the buildings blocks (the Amino Acids, Proteins, Nucleic Acids, etc.) and assemble them together to create a functional living cell, from the ground up.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
Essentially, since Abiogenesis and Evolutionism are asserted to be entirely real and Naturalistic, there are two very major accomplishments that scientists must do in order for these theories to be absolutely convincing...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
Such chemical affinities and self ordering have been one of the leading arguments and hopes of scientists involved in the ideas surrounding Abiogenesis because without such realities, there's no reason for Amino Acids or Nucleotides to form in the ordered way they exist within Proteins and DNA (and RNA). Unfortunately, science has shown again and again that this hoped for explanation does not work with Amino Acids and the molecules involved in Nucleotides. There's no combination affinity.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
If you don't understand the idea behind Chemical Affinities and Self Ordering, it's basically the idea that certain atoms and molecules are more likely to combine with each other instead of other atoms and molecules, based on the natural ease of those combinations (bonding) taking place. Though it is NOT magnetism, magnetism is a good example of the ideas at play. Two magnets attract each other together. A magnet and non-magnet, however, do not, as an example.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
3) Chemical Affinities and Self Ordering. This idea is that the nature of the molecules themselves will inherently combine and order themselves naturally without any need for direction or control mechanisms to help them along. An example of "self ordering" and combination affinities is salt. The molecules involved are automatically likely to join in a repetitive and repeating order (crystallizing). Science has proven that this idea also fails. Proteins and Nucleotides do NOT self assemble.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
There are three major speculations or theories in science with regards to life arising from non-life.
1) Random chance. This idea has been so clearly debunked that few, if any, scientists today will even suggest it. The odds are way too impossible.
2) Natural Selection. But Natural Selection only works upon survival and reproduction. It can't help on the molecular level. The DNA still has to come from somewhere first in order to reproduce and start the mutation processes...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
A hypothetical example of this sort of thing in play would be a scientist and psychologist deciding to study chimpanzees to better understand the development of social structures within prehistoric man. Note that from the very beginning, Evolutionism (our evolving from chimpz) is an already predetermined "fact". So then is it any wonder that the outcome of such a study would also align with Evolutionary thinking, no matter the outcome?
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Evolutionary theory you mean? Our evolving from a common ancestor with chimps you mean? These are important distinctions.
youhazapinecone 1 month ago
Belief or personal opinion, perspective (etc.) does not itself mean that a conclusion is not valid. However the beliefs and personal opinions (speculations, assumptions, etc.) need to be separated out from the data and analysis in order to get a solid foundation first, THEN you can re-introduce the interpretive methods and see where it leads and why. This helps differentiate between the real facts and the interpreted "facts" that might be valid, or might not be.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
What OFNF, myself, and others from our stand point are saying (with regards to Evolutionism, etc.) is that the problem is not usually the scientific data itself, but the interpretation of that data. To put it mathematically, (Data + Interpretation = Conclusion). Real science should be heavily backed up by the evidences and lots of data and a lot less based on Interpretation and pre-determined belief. That's what we argue has been lost with regards to Evolutionism.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
What I'm saying is that many of the evidences being shown here that are problematic for Evolutionism ARE based in science, not only religion. To argue that a person's religious beliefs automatically rule out that person having a valid scientific point is itself not valid. By such a statement, nothing anyone ever says could be trusted at all, because everyone has a worldview through which they interpret all things, even scientists. Real science is true science, no matter the source's beliefs.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair "Real science is true science, no matter the source's beliefs."
For instance, if an atheist calculates 2+2=4, is that more accurate and valid than if a Christian also calculates 2+2=4? No, of course not. Because the data itself is not changed dependent upon the actual beliefs or perceptions of the person performing the calculation.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Essentially, all the required chemical reactions to produce all the necessary "building blocks" and "components" from bottom to top (for a single living cell) is well beyond a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (etc.) perfectly ordered reactions. Then if you consider all the perfect environmental conditions required, which at the very least add up to thousands upon thousands... There's just NO way! It isn't at all possible!
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9) A single living cell uses THOUSANDS of DIFFERENT Proteins and Enzymes to do what it does (needs to) to survive. Each of the 2 key features of life (Metabolism, Reproduction) require hundreds of different Proteins each, and require enough quantities of all 20 Amino Acids essential for life to build those required critical Proteins.
I could go on all the way up the line pointing out big gaping holes in Abiogenesis (chemical evolution), and even continue right on up through Evolutionism itself.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
7) But DNA and RNA are far more complex than even a typical Protein, so you end up with an even WORSE problem of "Where did RNA and DNA, the instructions for Protein building, come from?" Since they too can't form by natural non-living processes. Their odds are hundreds of times worse than Proteins, which are already way beyond impossible.
8) None of these molecules can survive on a planet without a protective Ozone layer. Yet the atoms that make up the Ozone layer destroy those molecules.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4) The odds of Amino Acids combining in exactly the write order to create a single Protein, even given absolutely perfect conditions and not counting the instability of Amino Acids themselves, are completely impossible.
5) Proteins are ONLY ever built (out of Amino Acids) by living cells using an instructional blue print from existing DNA.
6) That means that DNA, or at the very least RNA, must exist first and contain the correct combinations (info) in order to build Proteins.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) The 20 Amino Acids that are required for even a single living cell cannot have formed on earth thanks to earth's atmosphere not containing the right required atoms, while also containing the wrong atoms that would instead prevent Amino Acids.
2) Amino Acids themselves are extremely unstable, constantly breaking down and/or making very "bad" combinations.
3) All Amino Acids used in life are "left handed" ONLY. Any Amino Acids that COULD MAYBE form are equally left and right handed.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
To be perfectly honest, there are a ton of a major critical problems the faces the whole idea of Abiogenesis (life arising from non-living molecules). I've mentioned just a few of those problems, but there are MANY. This is a HUGE problem for Evolutionism because Evolutionism, and modern science, is based entirely on Naturalistic explanations, yet such explanations and reality cannot come anywhere close to generating the components of a single cell, never mind an actual living cell.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you look at ANY scientific experiment that tries to generate Amino Acids in the lab without the use of living cells, you'll find that all of them either have special (intelligently designed and implemented) mechanisms in place that are used to "protect" or separate the Amino Acids from the harmful molecules and chemicals that these processes also create. This has to be done because otherwise the Amino Acids can't survive or remain true to form. Intelligent man has to intervene on their behalf
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As I've already mentioned, Amino Acids are extremely unstable and constantly and easily fall apart and/or combine with all kinds of other atoms and molecules besides just other Amino Acids. This makes the coming together of a single Protein even MORE unlikely than the perfectly ideal conditions described in the 20^400 probability equation I've shown...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy "Evolution theory has been called the most well understood and tested theory in science."
Really? Evolution is better understood and tested than all other major sciences and specific scientific understandings such as chemistry, physics, gravity, astronomy, electricity, magnetism, radioactivity, medicine, biology (not counting Evolutionism)... Our modern technological age would beg to differ with you. ;-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Funny how you exclude evolution specifically, when it is intimately intertwined with chemistry, physics, medicine, and especially biology. Get real. If evolution was false then even an imbecile such as you could prove it wrong, no? Where is your proof? Paper after paper after paper AFTER paper, etcetera, has been published that supports evolution. Where is the evidence that opposes evolution? Oh! Maybe it's in the Bible!
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy While science does not not work strictly on consensus, chemistry, physics, gravity, astronomy, electricity, magnetism, radioactivity, medicine, biology, all these things are all products of scientific method; and in fact, disagree with you. All these fields, to varying degrees, support evolution. Perhaps you could take any one of them and describe how they support salvation through Christ? Maybe you could explain how Jesus sidestepped all of these, rose from the dead and ascended?
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@impiouspuppy "all these things are all products of scientific method"
Interesting thing about the scientific method that you might or might not know. The "father" of the "Scientific Method" was Robert Grosseteste, a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church. Roger Bacon, a Christian and one of Grosseteste's followers, strongly advocated the common use of the Scientific Method. Kind of counters the typical atheistic argument that all religious people hate science. ;-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Wow. Straw man much? Did you learn this from OFNF, or is this just a common attribute of Bible thumpers? Seriously, the thing I find curious about religious folk, especially those who understand science, is why they don't apply what they know of science (scientific methodology) to religion. Sorry, but saying all atheists say that religious people hate science is like saying all religious people say atheists don't have any morals; both are easily disproven.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@impiouspuppy "Sorry, but saying all atheists say that religious people hate science is like saying all religious people say atheists don't have any morals"
I never said ALL atheists claim that religious people hate science. I simply stated that MANY say this, and that many comments on here have shown this to be true. It's not a straw man, because the evidences even here show that atheists like to make that exact argument.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@impiouspuppy "Sorry, but saying all atheists say that religious people hate science is like saying all religious people say atheists don't have any morals"
A correct position on the "morality" issue is not that Atheists have no morals, it's that they have no absolute basis for being moral. That's a significant difference. An atheist can certainly be a good person, but the ultimate decision to be such is entirely based upon their own personality or desire to do so and little else.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@impiouspuppy "Perhaps you could take any one of them and describe how they support salvation through Christ?"
Science support salvation through Christ?... That's a rather silly statement coming from a purely "scientific naturalistic" perspective. Did you want to discuss science or religion? Science, especially naturalistic science, cannot on its own advocate for personal salvation through Christ, which is a historical, spiritual and theological matter. Clearly.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Yes, it was meant as a silly comment, as it’s pretty obvious that ‘salvation’ is a strange concept from a naturalistic perspective.
Would I like to discuss science or religion?! I would LOVE to discuss science; but the issue here, in my eyes, is the dismissal of *science* *because* of religion. Yes, a theistic discussion is a theological matter, void of science. Clearly.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@impiouspuppy "If evolution was false then even an imbecile such as you could prove it wrong, no? Where is your proof?"
Not sure if you've read over previous comments on here or in other threads of Onceforgivennowfree's videos. If you had, you'd see there is plenty of proof that Evolution doesn't work, and major problematic holes in the whole idea. If you'd like, I could repeat them all and more again for you. We may be here a while though ;-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Yes, I have read them. No need repeating them, either, I'm not a believer of the idiom 'a lie repeated often enough. . .'
I’ve also read (and written) comments that show the errors in his videos, the constant and obvious straw manning, and such bad misrepresentations it’s hard not to believe OFNF isn’t simply *lying* through his teeth.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy If ANY of the holes OFNF poke in evolution were true or bared out by the evidence, Matt could be FAMOUS if he’d just submit one paper! Science doesn’t demonize when you prove a theory false, it’s called revolution and it’s celebrated because it increases our knowledge of the world and universe.
impiouspuppy 1 month ago
@impiouspuppy "If ANY of the holes OFNF poke in evolution were true or bared out by the evidence"
They are, as OFNF and myself have partly demonstrated. Though these are considered serious problems for scientists, who even admit this themselves, they still believe that these things must have happened by naturalistic means entirely because their methodology and scientific philosophy dictates it must be so. That means despite the big holes, they still believe, though they can't fully explain it.