And you completely skipped over the reason that entropy can decrease in an open system; there is energy input, also can be thought of as a local decrease in entropy, while the entropy elsewhere in the system (defined to minimise energy flux from or to) will increase. You can't just say that closed systems don't exist so we shouldn't try defining systems as closed; the useful equations only hold for closed systems, so to evaluate it, a quasi-ideal closed system should be aspired to.
Scientific laws can be violated; Hooke's law, Boyle's gas law, even Newton's laws don't apply when particles are travelling extremely fast. Laws of biology are like this; applied and work in regard to specific details; similarly, biological laws work within biology. Furthermore, current abiogenesis theory states that life doesn't arise directly from non-life, and several intermediate steps are required.
There is a single closed system, and that system alone is what the second law of thermodynamics, the way you phrase it, implies: "the entropy of *the universe* is always increasing." As a consequence of this, every process that decreases entropy in one body increases it in another - however, such processes do exist, and life happens to be one of them. If you doubt such processes exist, how does your refrigerator work? By intelligent agency, yes, but humans are bound by the laws of physics.
The universe is a closed system, Mr. Juby. Have you even studied thermodynamics? This is the 2nd video I've seen where you've claimed that closed systems don't exist. Unfortunately, you're wrong.
Have you studied it? The Universe is theoretically a closed system, but we can and do only test it in an open system...and all data is based on an open system. A closed is in THEORY ONLY...and by the way....we are in the Universe...so how does either system not apply? It's evo rhetoric, all testing is in an open system and proves that a closed system would only be MORE valid...But, since it is 100% valid in an open system, how much more valid would a closed system be, 110%?
@creationcamp Yes, I've studied the 2nd law...in great detail. I've taken more thermo than anyone would ever want to take. Thermo in chemistry, thermo in physics, thermo in engineering, thermo in engineering labs. It's not evo rhetoric. I'll send you a PM. It's hard to explain in 500 chars. Rest assured, entropy increases in a closed system (the universe) and doesn't necessarily in an open system. It's physics, not rhetoric.
Wow sir, you obviously have no understanding of the scientific method and what 'laws' actually are. I am sure glad there isn't people like you writing science books and running the United States...Oh wait there is, we are screwed.
On the episode of South Park where Cartman pretended to be retarded what they don't show you is the video he was studying directly after Kid Rock was of Ian Juby.
@johnbgroovy How do u account personality, and that you know that you exist. That you are self aware, materials don't know they are aware. Thats the spirit. The mind is not the brain. The brain is the material and the mind is the way a person thinks philosophically. This none physical enitity of I or you, no one else can hold or grasp of themselves. What you think is yours alone. If scientist picked your brain they could not give us reference of your beliefs and ideas. That is the spirit.
Mr. Juby, you've repeated the fatal error that Chuck Missler made in his hilarious video: life doesn't form in jars of peanut butter, and it doesn't form anew in blenders of tortured frogs.
Ian I hope it wasn't any of the philosophical materialists that were offended; it was only matter blending some other matter after all!
Any how no one seriously thought you blended that cute little frog did they? Perhaps you should get Freddy to make an announcement or they will never be convinced ;-)
Good video Ian as usual and as usual the "Science Foundation" shows up (what a misnomer!) spouting off as if life came from non-life and things evolved from...yada yada yada. Its amazing these people stick to their religion more fervantly than do us Christians, and in that repect we could learn something from them, but they are consistanly shown their theory is wrong and they defend it with all the fervor of a battle hardened soldier protecting a parking lot! What a shame.
Good video Ian as usual and as usual the "Science Foundation" shows up (what a misnomer!) spouting off as if life came from non-life and things evolved from...yada yada yada. Its amazing these people stick to their religion more fervantly than do us Christians, and in that repect we could learn something from them, but they are consistanly shown their theory is wrong and they defend it with all the fervor of a battle hardened soldier protecting a parking lot! What a shame.
This retardation still? Biogenesis has nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life, Pasteur, Redi et. al. debunked the notion that modern life arose spontaneously, nothing more.
I agree with the fact that if something is proved to be incorrect by use of logic, reason, or evidence I would acknowledge my mistake and be honest that we don't really know how evolution works.
However...the issue here is creationists slapping on the "GOD DID IT" sticker to replace that UNKNOWN. It's blatantly dishonest and wrong to assume as FACT without evidence that a GOD did it. " I don't know " is not a shameful phrase it shows honesty and it humbles our egos.
Miller's experiment started with lifeless chemicals and finished with lifeless chemicals, it takes a HUGE amount of faith and belief to think life can arise naturally when all the discoveries of science show the exact opposite.
GOD is not default answer for things we truly don't know about.
I would be more than happy to change my answer to God when there's substantial evidence unlike creations like you who would NEVER allow the possibility of a non existent God.
@4Chanonymous No, he isn't, stop trying to poison the well. Also don't use sweeping generalizations, provide evidence. Stop being the typical evolutionists / atheist stalker, stop trolling.
@Devin82m Yes he is, the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with chemical or genetic composition. If you don't even understand that you really shouldn't be trying to comment on it, let alone make a video.
@4Chanonymous Wow, I can't believe (well I can if you believe evolution) that statement. Here are a bunch of articles covering the subject thoroughly: h ttp://creation.c om/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers if those have to many worlds for you here is a single article (This one is VERY technical so be careful): h ttp://ww w.ldolphin.o rg/mystery/chapt7.h tml Here is another less technical: h ttp://creation.c om/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics (Remove spaces)
@Devin82m Those pages try to convey exactly what I pointed out the second law *doesn't* cover, they even link to a page that says 'clothes fade etc.' in an effort to try to use entropy to discredit evolution.
Once again, if you don't even know what the law you're referring to entails, you shouldn't be commenting, much less making videos espousing thermodynamic ignorance.
@4Chanonymous You didn't read the articles I can tell. Also yes, they do have the second law of thermodynamics listed as an argument not to use, but that is in a certain context. You obviously did not read the articles... Sad, and you want people to think YOU are intellectually honest.
@Devin82m creation dot com linked to a christian answers net page that specifically uses the second law as an argument against chemistry and evolution.
One of us obviously hasn't read the articles and it certainly wasn't me.
@Devin82m After all this time, you still haven't learned what "poisoning the well" means. Here's a hint...Disagreeing with you is not the definition of "poisoning the well."
So.... you don't understand what evolutionary theory says, therefore you do not know how evolution works, therefore it must be magic. And you expect your argument by ignorance to be compelling enough to share. Amazing. Just amazing.
@Desertphile I think I'm confused, it sounds as if you are saying Ian doesn't understand the theory of evolution. I was just saying the theory of evolution has no facts or evidence to support it. Just like the Big Bang, String Theory, World Ensemble, and good old Abiogenesis, it's all just cute materialist magic stories. Something to keep the atheist feeling better about their joke of a religion.
@Devin82m "the theory of evolution has no facts or evidence to support it" dead giveaway that you have no idea what you're talking about. "it's all just cute materialist magic stories" just keep closing your eyes and repeating that again and again, maybe you can protect your mind from the truth of the matter, for now.
@Devin82m Deserpile is another militant homosexual who spends his time attacking Jesus. Actually the fact that all of these atheist evolutards attack Jesus is proof that Jesus is indeed The Christ. You never see them attack Buddha or Mohammud.
@thechessstick Very true... Scary, Expected if you read God's Word, and Sad. They are doing exactly what Paul says unbelievers will do in Romans 1:24-32. "24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." There is more of course. Yeah, they are tolerant to everyone but Christians.
@Desertphile Just like it's a fact that the Earth was flat because the scientific community used to accept it, right? It's never been observed. It remains nothing more than a poorly supported theory. Many facts that are actually observed must be ignored in order for the theory to be regarded as accurate.
@TheScienceFoundation I actually dont' take that he 'saw' all the kingdoms from a high mountain literally because that is impossible. He was seeing a vision of kingdoms over time and the reason he was taken up on a high mountain was to show that he could be 'exalted' had he took the devil's offer. Makes sense if you think about it like that. The Bible is full of prophets receiving 'visions'. This is just another account.
@NoaahsArk And you prove my point, the passage is completely out of line with everything we know about reality, so you take it as figurative. Any text is 100% accurate if you ignore all the misses.
@DoomsdayWars The earliest promoter of the flat Earth was Lactantius (AD 245–325) who rejected all Greek philosophers, and thus also rejected a spherical Earth. He was considered a heretic by Church fathers. It was Renaissance humanists who took interest in him, and accepted and revived the idea of a flat Earth.
@hellavadeal As I told jeff, I never said abiogenetic study wasn't science, I said it's not evolution. They're two different scientific fields of study.
Given that I've explained this to you personally several times, you're just being dishonest now. What does the bible say about bearing false witness?
is abiogenesis testable, observable and repeatable? nope. therefore abiogenesis is not science.
from article
" Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution"
@jeffblue101 I see the problem here, you have no understanding of even the basic tenets of science. Science isn't 'we know everything there is to know and we know it right now' science is an iterative process of the acquisition of knowledge.
Again, the origin of life is a different field than evolution, biochemistry and biology respectively.
@TheScienceFoundation What is the title of Darwin's book? What is the tree of life about? It is taught that life originated from organic molecules. Darwin speculated that all life may have came from a common organism. What was that and where is it believed it came from? It is part and the basses of evolutionary teachings. Just like the pit down man Evolution is the lie.
@hellavadeal on the origin of *species*. the diversification of life
It doesn't matter where the life came from, evolution explains *only* (as a single fact or instance and nothing more or different) the diversity of life.
"Nothing indicates that he did, or that it was created at all." the fact the laws of nature work against the formation of life coming non-life is not evidence?
@TheScienceFoundation The part that it is taught in schools that way not the way you are babbling. Silly. That is what i am not grasping. You hate to have your religion challenged , We have had this conversation before Troll. You love being insane and doing the same things expecting different results. Give it a rest .
" I hate to have ignoramuses assume their scientific illiteracy constitutes any sort of argument against actual science."
in your world-view were nothing more than rearranged pond scum. why does it matter whether or not someone is an " ignoramuses in their scientific literacy "?
@TheScienceFoundation Evolution is not science , so you should be mad at yourself. It is taught in the text books , under evolution, that life came from organic molecules and formed all the life we see through mutations and millions of years. It is taught that way . It is evolutionary lies. If you do not like it join us and having this teaching removed from the text books. Or shut up.
@TheScienceFoundation All you have are insults troll. It is in all the biology text books. Just because your belief will not allow you to see other theories that explain how we have all this life Does not mean there is no other explanation for it. That is not scientific to disregard other ideas off hand . Evolution is filled with fraud, misleading data, fudge factor and lies ... Not real science.
@hellavadeal Actually it's only ad hominem if I try to replace the argument with a personal attack, I appended the fact that you're ignorant to my pointing out that abiogenesis is organic chemistry, not biology.
@TheScienceFoundationNo , i am saying the opposite. Evolution uses it to explain their theory . You are so messed up. I know you cannot help it. Your god gene is not working.
@hellavadeal Don't waste too much time on TSF. He is a militant homosexual who attacks Christians because they believe God's Word. He is quite unintelligent. He is a typical evolutard.
@thechessstick I know, I just like to give him a hard time of it. We have been doing this for about a year now. He keeps using arguments i destroyed long ago and knows it.. His mind is unable to accept it. So i do not even try to be logical with him, just make it harder for him to pick on others while messing with me.
@TheScienceFoundation Just the opposite. Evolution uses it not the other way around. It needs it because the alternitive is beyond your ability to accept. It isn't your fault. Your god gene is not working.
@jeffblue101 I stick with the most supported explanations for X Y Z because 1: That's the only way to progress and 2: Any mistakes or falsehoods are quickly pointed out, as I've been demonstrating with yours and hellavadeals
Evolutionist's have an unwavering commitment in abiogenesis. The hard science you've shown in this video against it could never get in the way of their blind faith, it's essential to their worldview.
Thermodynamics deals with heat energy as the name implies, it does not deal with information in a system, genetic or otherwise.
It's videos like this that make we who actually understand biology think that Ian is being as obtuse and deliberately unlearned as possible as if to make fun of actual lowbrow creationists and how they view evolution.
@jeffblue101 This is what is known as an argument from ignorance. Creationists like to imply that because the entirety of abiogenesis isn't a complete puzzle that this somehow makes negatively produced space for their mysticism. It doesn't.
While it's true that life hasn't been produced in an origin of life experiment, literally all evidence and experimentation indicates natural processes while nothing indicates the contrary.
@jeffblue101 "The model considered here is not supposed to be realistic by any account. It only serves to illustrate the difference in the demands on chance for the origin of different versions of the breakthrough system"
"The history of life includes a crucial transition from chance to biological evolution"
secondly, He used inflated odds in RNA reproduction so other words he gave OOL its best shot and it still fails. that is why he supports the multiverse to explain this improbable event.
@TheScienceFoundation "Thermodynamics deals with heat energy as the name implies, it does not deal with information in a system, genetic or otherwise."
Does it not also deal with Entropy; disorder or randomness?
@allan3141 Yes, in the form of heat equilibrium, again, not genetics or biochemistry. Even so, we receive more usable heat energy than we lose from the sun.
@TheScienceFoundation "usable heat energy" What would unusable energy be in your accounting here?
Also, I am talking more along the lines of the Statistical Mechanics definition of Entropy rather then the cruder Thermodynamic definition; are you?
Also how would these equations account for the following scenario in your view? Through the application of intelligence and will on Earth a very large amount of Energy, originally from Sun, in collected placed on ships and returned to the Sun.
@TheScienceFoundation "In physics that means energy available to do physical work" I know this! It doesn’t answer my question. What energy is unusable? You need to give at least one example.
"He's referring to thermodynamics" Yes and so am I, more specifically the Second Law which has the more precise and more modern Statistical Mechanics definition.
"Energy would still be lost........." This completely evades my question, but my question was I think clear, could you try addressing it?
@allan3141 Entropy, that's the measure of unusable energy. Read up on convertible energy.
statistical mechanics is still referring to energetic equilibrium, just on a microscopic level. It's not describing anything different, just going more in depth.
What is it in your scenario that you think would need to be accounted for? There's nothing in that scenario that contradicts any current empirical physics.
@TheScienceFoundation "Read up on convertible energy." You have still not given at least one example of unusable energy, as required, and requested.
On point 2 what Law(s) of Physics (or branch(s) of physics) would be used to explain why a detailed picture originally formed using different coloured grains of sand, say, if stirred indefinitely would not reform the original detailed picture nor any other clearly recognisable distinct detailed picture? Cont..
@TSF Cont.. “how would TD account for the following scenario in your view? Through the application of intelligence and will on Earth a very large amount of energy, originally from Sun, is collected, placed on ships, and returned to the Sun.”
My scenario involved, through the application of intelligence and will, a net movement of usable energy (originally obtained from the Sun) from the Earth back to the Sun. Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that is absolutely not feasible?
@allan3141 I never said it wasn't feasible to ship energy back to the sun, I pointed out that you can never do it at 100% efficiency, you will always lose usable energy.
Neither did I just talk about shipping energy back but rather affecting a net shift back in the opposite direction. Your now mentioning efficiency is bizarre it has no bearing on what I was asking. Image if is did this: You state, "the Sun gives more energy to the Earth than it gets back" and I bizarrely reply, "No you’re wrong because it is not 100% efficient"! or another example... cont
@TheScienceFoundation this is waffle. It has nothing bar nothing to do with what you were asked or what was said. It is or is not possible, through the application of intelligence and will of conscious agents within a system, to change the direction of the net flow of energy of that system?
And you completely skipped over the reason that entropy can decrease in an open system; there is energy input, also can be thought of as a local decrease in entropy, while the entropy elsewhere in the system (defined to minimise energy flux from or to) will increase. You can't just say that closed systems don't exist so we shouldn't try defining systems as closed; the useful equations only hold for closed systems, so to evaluate it, a quasi-ideal closed system should be aspired to.
Samuelwhatshisface 1 week ago
Scientific laws can be violated; Hooke's law, Boyle's gas law, even Newton's laws don't apply when particles are travelling extremely fast. Laws of biology are like this; applied and work in regard to specific details; similarly, biological laws work within biology. Furthermore, current abiogenesis theory states that life doesn't arise directly from non-life, and several intermediate steps are required.
Samuelwhatshisface 1 week ago
There is a single closed system, and that system alone is what the second law of thermodynamics, the way you phrase it, implies: "the entropy of *the universe* is always increasing." As a consequence of this, every process that decreases entropy in one body increases it in another - however, such processes do exist, and life happens to be one of them. If you doubt such processes exist, how does your refrigerator work? By intelligent agency, yes, but humans are bound by the laws of physics.
IoEstasCedonta 4 weeks ago
The universe is a closed system, Mr. Juby. Have you even studied thermodynamics? This is the 2nd video I've seen where you've claimed that closed systems don't exist. Unfortunately, you're wrong.
Ripley747 2 months ago
@Ripley747
Have you studied it? The Universe is theoretically a closed system, but we can and do only test it in an open system...and all data is based on an open system. A closed is in THEORY ONLY...and by the way....we are in the Universe...so how does either system not apply? It's evo rhetoric, all testing is in an open system and proves that a closed system would only be MORE valid...But, since it is 100% valid in an open system, how much more valid would a closed system be, 110%?
creationcamp 1 month ago
@creationcamp Yes, I've studied the 2nd law...in great detail. I've taken more thermo than anyone would ever want to take. Thermo in chemistry, thermo in physics, thermo in engineering, thermo in engineering labs. It's not evo rhetoric. I'll send you a PM. It's hard to explain in 500 chars. Rest assured, entropy increases in a closed system (the universe) and doesn't necessarily in an open system. It's physics, not rhetoric.
Ripley747 1 month ago
Wow sir, you obviously have no understanding of the scientific method and what 'laws' actually are. I am sure glad there isn't people like you writing science books and running the United States...Oh wait there is, we are screwed.
Cactarpus 4 months ago
On the episode of South Park where Cartman pretended to be retarded what they don't show you is the video he was studying directly after Kid Rock was of Ian Juby.
DoomsdayWars 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree that Juby seems like a pretty good guy.
However, he is simply willfully ignorant when it comes to science, since the science doesn't confirm the Bible as a literal science text.
No man literally lived in a fish for three days--Jonah is a metaphorical STORY.
Likewise, the Earth is not 6000 years old...
....and evolution does not violate the laws of physics.
Any Creator has created organism that evolve...
odinata 5 months ago
God is in your heart and yet heart surgeons don't find Gods in hearts.
God is in your soul or spirit, and yet I have never observed evidence of a spirit or soul
God is everywhere in the universe and yet, none have confirmed an efficient method of communication to ANY God.
Gods intentions can not be fathomed by man, yet we are expected to know him
I've studied these claims wanting to find God but failed, despite that,
I am happy with FACTS! Even if they go against my wish of wanting a God.
johnbgroovy 5 months ago
@johnbgroovy How do u account personality, and that you know that you exist. That you are self aware, materials don't know they are aware. Thats the spirit. The mind is not the brain. The brain is the material and the mind is the way a person thinks philosophically. This none physical enitity of I or you, no one else can hold or grasp of themselves. What you think is yours alone. If scientist picked your brain they could not give us reference of your beliefs and ideas. That is the spirit.
Dudex58 5 months ago 2
@Dudex58
"materials don't know they are aware."
Brains manage to do that very well, thank you.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr. Juby, you've repeated the fatal error that Chuck Missler made in his hilarious video: life doesn't form in jars of peanut butter, and it doesn't form anew in blenders of tortured frogs.
Its a ridiculous strawman.......
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics.
Only an idiot would claim it does...
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Utter fail, Juby.
Where do you get the fuel to power your rants?
The same place ALL energy for life comes from.
The second law of thermodynamics DRIVES evolution.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata "The second law of thermodynamics DRIVES evolution" Facepalm.
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
Scarcity of resources,,,,
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata "Scarcity of resources,,,,"
What?
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where did you come from, Juby?
You violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, according to your logic.
By your thinking, no zygote could become more complex, growing into trillions of cells that form complex tissues, organs, and stubby creationists.
This is a logic fail...
...and a clearer insight into why science doesn't confirm Juby's personal religious opinion.
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ian is just repeating the Chuck Missler peanut butter debacle here.
It takes an Earth to make life, not a jar of peanut butter, and not even a jar of frog juice.
Not only is this in poor taste, its flawed logic that Chuck Missler has already taken a beating for.
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its funny that Juby would appeal to a scientific law on the one hand, and deny science on the other.
Is our jowly creationist insisting that the Earth did not have a reducing atmosphere?
Is he claiming there was no heat, no lightning on Earth?
odinata 5 months ago
This is fvcking stupid!! Does anyone seriously believe this guy?? Seriously, this must be a joke...
blondeno1girl 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ian I hope it wasn't any of the philosophical materialists that were offended; it was only matter blending some other matter after all!
Any how no one seriously thought you blended that cute little frog did they? Perhaps you should get Freddy to make an announcement or they will never be convinced ;-)
allan3141 5 months ago 3
Comment removed
allan3141 5 months ago
There is a metal hip replacement ad attacked to this video, can someone say target audience?
sweatytoothmadman 5 months ago
Great movie :)
SinOfKane 5 months ago
Lol awesome vid yet again!
9pt9 5 months ago
Hey there..loved Crevo Rant #94...suggestions for frog soup recipes anyone? Regards; Mike, South Africa
MyBIGMIKE34 5 months ago
@MyBIGMIKE34 The main ingredient is one very large strawman.
DoomsdayWars 5 months ago
I like the warning in red you added to the beginning. That was nice. : )
HeMadeYouSpecial 5 months ago
I freakin love frogs! :D ha! that trick was awesome and funny though.
NoaahsArk 5 months ago
Comment removed
BillKiernan 5 months ago
@BillKiernan you didn't go to the end of the video
14dicken 5 months ago
@BillKiernan did u watch the entire video? he didn't kill the frog just so u know.
azjmiles 5 months ago
Good video Ian as usual and as usual the "Science Foundation" shows up (what a misnomer!) spouting off as if life came from non-life and things evolved from...yada yada yada. Its amazing these people stick to their religion more fervantly than do us Christians, and in that repect we could learn something from them, but they are consistanly shown their theory is wrong and they defend it with all the fervor of a battle hardened soldier protecting a parking lot! What a shame.
hmcdaniel1979 5 months ago
Good video Ian as usual and as usual the "Science Foundation" shows up (what a misnomer!) spouting off as if life came from non-life and things evolved from...yada yada yada. Its amazing these people stick to their religion more fervantly than do us Christians, and in that repect we could learn something from them, but they are consistanly shown their theory is wrong and they defend it with all the fervor of a battle hardened soldier protecting a parking lot! What a shame.
hmcdaniel1979 5 months ago
"Such as the law of biogenesis"
This retardation still? Biogenesis has nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life, Pasteur, Redi et. al. debunked the notion that modern life arose spontaneously, nothing more.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I agree with the fact that if something is proved to be incorrect by use of logic, reason, or evidence I would acknowledge my mistake and be honest that we don't really know how evolution works.
However...the issue here is creationists slapping on the "GOD DID IT" sticker to replace that UNKNOWN. It's blatantly dishonest and wrong to assume as FACT without evidence that a GOD did it. " I don't know " is not a shameful phrase it shows honesty and it humbles our egos.
johnbgroovy 5 months ago
@ozredneck22 >>
Miller's experiment started with lifeless chemicals and finished with lifeless chemicals, it takes a HUGE amount of faith and belief to think life can arise naturally when all the discoveries of science show the exact opposite.
GOD is not default answer for things we truly don't know about.
I would be more than happy to change my answer to God when there's substantial evidence unlike creations like you who would NEVER allow the possibility of a non existent God.
johnbgroovy 5 months ago
yaaa Freddy we love you
stinkpuppyohno 5 months ago
wow what a waist of a good frog for an elaborate strawman
stinkpuppyohno 5 months ago
Omg i didnt think he'd kill the frog. Well, I kill all kinds of things and it takes me longer than that blender needed.
disdroid 5 months ago
@disdroid Ooh, man! Dude!
PirateXzibit 5 months ago
Dude, that was excellent!!!!!!!
But you will be sued for the destruction of olives and peppers.......
Outcome:
- From what I here from Freddie folks Freddie has achieved “Rock Star” status and has moved to California.
- Darwin is now rolling over in his grave!
- Evolutionists are clogging up the suicide hotlines everywhere!
vebnew 5 months ago
yup!
RefinersFire298 5 months ago
Love it as usual Ian! God bless!
Devin82m 5 months ago
Okay, so he didn't kill the frog, but I had no way of knowing that unless I'd skipped to 6:40, and he never stated WHY I should skip to 6:40.
Orenotter 5 months ago
Okay, so he didn't kill the frog, but I had no way of knowing that unless I'd skipped to 6:40, and he never stated WHY I should skip to 6:40.
Orenotter 5 months ago
Given this guys behavior I'd say he suffers from histrionic personality disorder.
4Chanonymous 5 months ago
@4Chanonymous Nah! He's just a Canadian, but a great guy all round! (Really) :-D
Devin82m 5 months ago
@Devin82m No he's not, he's demonstrably spreading ignorance. That doesn't equate to being a 'great guy'
4Chanonymous 5 months ago
@4Chanonymous No, he isn't, stop trying to poison the well. Also don't use sweeping generalizations, provide evidence. Stop being the typical evolutionists / atheist stalker, stop trolling.
Devin82m 5 months ago
@Devin82m Yes he is, the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with chemical or genetic composition. If you don't even understand that you really shouldn't be trying to comment on it, let alone make a video.
4Chanonymous 5 months ago
@4Chanonymous Wow, I can't believe (well I can if you believe evolution) that statement. Here are a bunch of articles covering the subject thoroughly: h ttp://creation.c om/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers if those have to many worlds for you here is a single article (This one is VERY technical so be careful): h ttp://ww w.ldolphin.o rg/mystery/chapt7.h tml Here is another less technical: h ttp://creation.c om/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics (Remove spaces)
Devin82m 5 months ago
@Devin82m Words rather than worlds. Lol
Devin82m 5 months ago
@Devin82m Those pages try to convey exactly what I pointed out the second law *doesn't* cover, they even link to a page that says 'clothes fade etc.' in an effort to try to use entropy to discredit evolution.
Once again, if you don't even know what the law you're referring to entails, you shouldn't be commenting, much less making videos espousing thermodynamic ignorance.
4Chanonymous 5 months ago
@4Chanonymous You didn't read the articles I can tell. Also yes, they do have the second law of thermodynamics listed as an argument not to use, but that is in a certain context. You obviously did not read the articles... Sad, and you want people to think YOU are intellectually honest.
Devin82m 5 months ago
@Devin82m creation dot com linked to a christian answers net page that specifically uses the second law as an argument against chemistry and evolution.
One of us obviously hasn't read the articles and it certainly wasn't me.
4Chanonymous 5 months ago
@4Chanonymous Yes, that is my point...
Devin82m 5 months ago
@Devin82m Your point was that your source contradicts what you said?
4Chanonymous 5 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 5 months ago
@Devin82m After all this time, you still haven't learned what "poisoning the well" means. Here's a hint...Disagreeing with you is not the definition of "poisoning the well."
ancientwell 2 months ago
So.... you don't understand what evolutionary theory says, therefore you do not know how evolution works, therefore it must be magic. And you expect your argument by ignorance to be compelling enough to share. Amazing. Just amazing.
Desertphile 5 months ago
@Desertphile Wow, what a nice evasion you used! No evidence, no facts what so ever. You know, evolution.
Devin82m 5 months ago
@Devin82m It's already been pointed out that thermodynamics has nothing to do with genetics or chemistry.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation ? I didn't say anything about thermodynamics. Also that statement is silly.
h ttp://creation.c om/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem
Devin82m 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation ? I didn't say anything about thermodynamics. Also that statement is silly.
h ttp://creation.c om/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem
Devin82m 5 months ago
@Devin82m ; That's what I said, you silly goose. No facts at all: just baseless assertions that are wrong.
Desertphile 5 months ago
@Desertphile I think I'm confused, it sounds as if you are saying Ian doesn't understand the theory of evolution. I was just saying the theory of evolution has no facts or evidence to support it. Just like the Big Bang, String Theory, World Ensemble, and good old Abiogenesis, it's all just cute materialist magic stories. Something to keep the atheist feeling better about their joke of a religion.
Devin82m 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Devin82m "the theory of evolution has no facts or evidence to support it" dead giveaway that you have no idea what you're talking about. "it's all just cute materialist magic stories" just keep closing your eyes and repeating that again and again, maybe you can protect your mind from the truth of the matter, for now.
BillKiernan 5 months ago
@Devin82m Deserpile is another militant homosexual who spends his time attacking Jesus. Actually the fact that all of these atheist evolutards attack Jesus is proof that Jesus is indeed The Christ. You never see them attack Buddha or Mohammud.
thechessstick 5 months ago
@thechessstick Very true... Scary, Expected if you read God's Word, and Sad. They are doing exactly what Paul says unbelievers will do in Romans 1:24-32. "24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." There is more of course. Yeah, they are tolerant to everyone but Christians.
Devin82m 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thechessstick
What does Jesus have to say about your perverse slander?
Do think your ad hominems will make up for the facts that you can't seem to defend your opinions with facts?
odinata 5 months ago
@Desertphile Nope, it violates natural law and therefore it must be magic.
ItssBrian 5 months ago
@ItssBrian ; "it" being magic. Meanwhile, evolution is still an observed fact. Stings, eh?
Desertphile 5 months ago
Comment removed
ItssBrian 5 months ago
@Desertphile Just like it's a fact that the Earth was flat because the scientific community used to accept it, right? It's never been observed. It remains nothing more than a poorly supported theory. Many facts that are actually observed must be ignored in order for the theory to be regarded as accurate.
ItssBrian 5 months ago
@ItssBrian Actually it was science that showed the earth was a spheroid, it was ignorant and superstitious mystics that thought the earth was flat.
DoomsdayWars 5 months ago
@DoomsdayWars proof?
NoaahsArk 5 months ago
@NoaahsArk Read up on Eratosthenes
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I meant biblical proof of a 'flat earth'.
NoaahsArk 5 months ago
@NoaahsArk Matthew 4:8, the only way not to get flat earth from 'jesus saw all kingdoms of earth from a high mountain' is not to take it literally.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I actually dont' take that he 'saw' all the kingdoms from a high mountain literally because that is impossible. He was seeing a vision of kingdoms over time and the reason he was taken up on a high mountain was to show that he could be 'exalted' had he took the devil's offer. Makes sense if you think about it like that. The Bible is full of prophets receiving 'visions'. This is just another account.
NoaahsArk 5 months ago
@NoaahsArk And you prove my point, the passage is completely out of line with everything we know about reality, so you take it as figurative. Any text is 100% accurate if you ignore all the misses.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@DoomsdayWars The earliest promoter of the flat Earth was Lactantius (AD 245–325) who rejected all Greek philosophers, and thus also rejected a spherical Earth. He was considered a heretic by Church fathers. It was Renaissance humanists who took interest in him, and accepted and revived the idea of a flat Earth.
ItssBrian 5 months ago
I can't believe you actually did it. Ian, I've been a staunch supporter of you up to now, but that was uncalled for. Flag and dislike.
Orenotter 5 months ago
@Orenotter hope mom has more diapers
gr8vibes2 5 months ago
@Orenotter
did you actually watch the whole video. he shows it was a stunt at the end.
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 No, I "walked out" when he hit puree. I will be fair and finish watching.
Orenotter 5 months ago
@Orenotter hey it was for the good of science!
RefinersFire298 5 months ago
I get attacked all the time by evolutionists that say The origin of life is not what evolution is about. Funny Evolutionists.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal Did it ever occur to you that there may be a reason a lot of them bring it up all the time? Because it's not.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"Because it's not"
then take it out of the textbooks. Of course, you would never support such a position since it contradicts your naturalistic worldview.
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 I never said it wasn't science, I said abiogenesis isn't evolution. They're two completely different fields.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation LOL Then you should join us in having it removed from the biology text books.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal As I told jeff, I never said abiogenetic study wasn't science, I said it's not evolution. They're two different scientific fields of study.
Given that I've explained this to you personally several times, you're just being dishonest now. What does the bible say about bearing false witness?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
is abiogenesis testable, observable and repeatable? nope. therefore abiogenesis is not science.
from article
" Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution"
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 I see the problem here, you have no understanding of even the basic tenets of science. Science isn't 'we know everything there is to know and we know it right now' science is an iterative process of the acquisition of knowledge.
Again, the origin of life is a different field than evolution, biochemistry and biology respectively.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What is the title of Darwin's book? What is the tree of life about? It is taught that life originated from organic molecules. Darwin speculated that all life may have came from a common organism. What was that and where is it believed it came from? It is part and the basses of evolutionary teachings. Just like the pit down man Evolution is the lie.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal on the origin of *species*. the diversification of life
It doesn't matter where the life came from, evolution explains *only* (as a single fact or instance and nothing more or different) the diversity of life.
What part of that are you not grasping?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"It doesn't matter where the life came from"
so you have no problem with God created the first life.
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 Nothing indicates that he did, or that it was created at all.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
"Nothing indicates that he did, or that it was created at all." the fact the laws of nature work against the formation of life coming non-life is not evidence?
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation The part that it is taught in schools that way not the way you are babbling. Silly. That is what i am not grasping. You hate to have your religion challenged , We have had this conversation before Troll. You love being insane and doing the same things expecting different results. Give it a rest .
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal No, I hate to have ignoramuses assume their scientific illiteracy constitutes any sort of argument against actual science.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
" I hate to have ignoramuses assume their scientific illiteracy constitutes any sort of argument against actual science."
in your world-view were nothing more than rearranged pond scum. why does it matter whether or not someone is an " ignoramuses in their scientific literacy "?
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Evolution is not science , so you should be mad at yourself. It is taught in the text books , under evolution, that life came from organic molecules and formed all the life we see through mutations and millions of years. It is taught that way . It is evolutionary lies. If you do not like it join us and having this teaching removed from the text books. Or shut up.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal Of course evolution is science, it's the only science that explains the diversity of life on earth.
'It is taught in the text books , under evolution, that life came from organic molecules'
Source?
You keep confusing your personal stupidity for an argument, it's not a valid contention and never will be.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation All you have are insults troll. It is in all the biology text books. Just because your belief will not allow you to see other theories that explain how we have all this life Does not mean there is no other explanation for it. That is not scientific to disregard other ideas off hand . Evolution is filled with fraud, misleading data, fudge factor and lies ... Not real science.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal Actually it's only ad hominem if I try to replace the argument with a personal attack, I appended the fact that you're ignorant to my pointing out that abiogenesis is organic chemistry, not biology.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Then you think it should not be in the biology text book too?
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal While the origin of life is not biology, it is integral to the beginning of descent with modification.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation So it is needed for evolution . LOL that is what i have been saying all along. And you say i lie.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal No, you've been saying it's the same field and that evolution is supposed to somehow explain it, which is just ignorance.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundationNo , i am saying the opposite. Evolution uses it to explain their theory . You are so messed up. I know you cannot help it. Your god gene is not working.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal Not at all, evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life, abiogenesis explains the origin.
Read up on the difference between diversity and origin.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You like going in circles don't you? LOl
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal No circles here, I just have to correct the same fallacies over and over with you.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation By repeating the same fallacies. LOL Good luck with that.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@hellavadeal Yes, I've been having to quote your fallacies to correct them.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@hellavadeal Don't waste too much time on TSF. He is a militant homosexual who attacks Christians because they believe God's Word. He is quite unintelligent. He is a typical evolutard.
thechessstick 5 months ago
@thechessstick I know, I just like to give him a hard time of it. We have been doing this for about a year now. He keeps using arguments i destroyed long ago and knows it.. His mind is unable to accept it. So i do not even try to be logical with him, just make it harder for him to pick on others while messing with me.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hellavadeal
If you think Earth is 6000 years old, or that organisms don't evolve, you don't have a pot to piss in.
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hellavadeal
Well imagine that! Finding a toothless hillbilly that's a Flat Earth Creationist on a Juby video.....
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hellavadeal 'He keeps using arguments i destroyed long ago and knows it'
Name one.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@hellavadeal 'So i do not even try to be logical with him'
You never tried to be logical in the first place, but then again you're a creationist so that's to be expected.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thechessstick
Why don't you obey Jesus?
odinata 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Just the opposite. Evolution uses it not the other way around. It needs it because the alternitive is beyond your ability to accept. It isn't your fault. Your god gene is not working.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"you're just being dishonest now. What does the bible say about bearing false witness?"
at least we have an objective standard to judge our behavior. what exactly is preventing you from lying in this discussion?
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 No, you have your subjective belief of an objective standard, a person claiming that X is Y is the epitome of subjective.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"No, you have your subjective belief of an objective standard,"
you never answered my question. what is preventing you from liying in this discussion?
secondly is it absolutely wrong to push my subjective beliefs onto other people.
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 I stick with the most supported explanations for X Y Z because 1: That's the only way to progress and 2: Any mistakes or falsehoods are quickly pointed out, as I've been demonstrating with yours and hellavadeals
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
Why would you think that killing an animal on camera would in any way support your position? Even a child would understand that is cruel.
weseeinpart 5 months ago
Evolutionist's have an unwavering commitment in abiogenesis. The hard science you've shown in this video against it could never get in the way of their blind faith, it's essential to their worldview.
fellowservant34 5 months ago
Thermodynamics deals with heat energy as the name implies, it does not deal with information in a system, genetic or otherwise.
It's videos like this that make we who actually understand biology think that Ian is being as obtuse and deliberately unlearned as possible as if to make fun of actual lowbrow creationists and how they view evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
plz explain pseudosciencefoundation how the first life came about through purely natural process.
you will get a noble prize if you do.
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
plz explain pseudosciencefoundation how the first life came about through purely natural process.
you will get a noble prize if you do.
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 This is what is known as an argument from ignorance. Creationists like to imply that because the entirety of abiogenesis isn't a complete puzzle that this somehow makes negatively produced space for their mysticism. It doesn't.
While it's true that life hasn't been produced in an origin of life experiment, literally all evidence and experimentation indicates natural processes while nothing indicates the contrary.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
lol, only if you consider a statistical miracle as proof for a natural process.
secondly,You are the one sticking your naturalism in gaps.
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 No, I consider the fact that everything from purine bases to ribonucleotides have formed automatically proof for natural processes.
I'm not sticking anything anywhere, the processes I speak of are actually empirically supported
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
so 1/10^1018 odds of a RNA replicator coming about by chance is empirically supported.
ncbi.nlm.nih(.)gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892545/
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 "The model considered here is not supposed to be realistic by any account. It only serves to illustrate the difference in the demands on chance for the origin of different versions of the breakthrough system"
>chance
Organic chemistry isn't chance.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
"Organic chemistry isn't chance."
sorry but the OOL is pure Chance.
from article
"The history of life includes a crucial transition from chance to biological evolution"
secondly, He used inflated odds in RNA reproduction so other words he gave OOL its best shot and it still fails. that is why he supports the multiverse to explain this improbable event.
jeffblue101 5 months ago
@jeffblue101 'sorry but the OOL is pure Chance.'
That's possibly the most ignorant thing you've ever said.
Again, try reading the article, he specifically states that the organic chemistry wasn't meant to simulate any real phenomenon.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
plz explain pseudosciencefoundation how the first life came about through purely natural process"
CDK007 did a video on that called Origin of life.
sweatytoothmadman 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "Thermodynamics deals with heat energy as the name implies, it does not deal with information in a system, genetic or otherwise."
Does it not also deal with Entropy; disorder or randomness?
allan3141 5 months ago 3
@allan3141 Yes, in the form of heat equilibrium, again, not genetics or biochemistry. Even so, we receive more usable heat energy than we lose from the sun.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "usable heat energy" What would unusable energy be in your accounting here?
Also, I am talking more along the lines of the Statistical Mechanics definition of Entropy rather then the cruder Thermodynamic definition; are you?
Also how would these equations account for the following scenario in your view? Through the application of intelligence and will on Earth a very large amount of Energy, originally from Sun, in collected placed on ships and returned to the Sun.
allan3141 5 months ago 4
@allan3141 In physics that means energy available to do physical work.
Not sure if you watched the video, the one I was replying to, but he specifically states he's referring to thermodynamics.
Energy would still be lost in the redistribution of solar energy from the earth to the sun.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "In physics that means energy available to do physical work" I know this! It doesn’t answer my question. What energy is unusable? You need to give at least one example.
"He's referring to thermodynamics" Yes and so am I, more specifically the Second Law which has the more precise and more modern Statistical Mechanics definition.
"Energy would still be lost........." This completely evades my question, but my question was I think clear, could you try addressing it?
allan3141 5 months ago 3
@allan3141 Entropy, that's the measure of unusable energy. Read up on convertible energy.
statistical mechanics is still referring to energetic equilibrium, just on a microscopic level. It's not describing anything different, just going more in depth.
What is it in your scenario that you think would need to be accounted for? There's nothing in that scenario that contradicts any current empirical physics.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "Read up on convertible energy." You have still not given at least one example of unusable energy, as required, and requested.
On point 2 what Law(s) of Physics (or branch(s) of physics) would be used to explain why a detailed picture originally formed using different coloured grains of sand, say, if stirred indefinitely would not reform the original detailed picture nor any other clearly recognisable distinct detailed picture? Cont..
allan3141 5 months ago 3
@allan3141 'You have still not given at least one example of unusable energy, as required, and requested'
As I said before, read up on convertible energy, in thermodynamics it defines energy which is usable by a system.
2: Entropy in a general sense can mean homogeneity, in thermodynamics specifically it refers to the equilibrium of energy in an isolated system.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 5 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 5 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 5 months ago
@TSF Cont.. “how would TD account for the following scenario in your view? Through the application of intelligence and will on Earth a very large amount of energy, originally from Sun, is collected, placed on ships, and returned to the Sun.”
My scenario involved, through the application of intelligence and will, a net movement of usable energy (originally obtained from the Sun) from the Earth back to the Sun. Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that is absolutely not feasible?
allan3141 5 months ago 3
@allan3141 I never said it wasn't feasible to ship energy back to the sun, I pointed out that you can never do it at 100% efficiency, you will always lose usable energy.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I never said you did say, I asked.
Neither did I just talk about shipping energy back but rather affecting a net shift back in the opposite direction. Your now mentioning efficiency is bizarre it has no bearing on what I was asking. Image if is did this: You state, "the Sun gives more energy to the Earth than it gets back" and I bizarrely reply, "No you’re wrong because it is not 100% efficient"! or another example... cont
allan3141 5 months ago 2
@allan3141 No, I said the earth receives more energy from the sun than it (the earth) loses.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation NOT IN MY SCENARIO
allan3141 5 months ago 2
@allan3141 If energy is not lost in your scenario then it's not feasible in any way. You cannot contain or move energy without expending energy.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation this is waffle. It has nothing bar nothing to do with what you were asked or what was said. It is or is not possible, through the application of intelligence and will of conscious agents within a system, to change the direction of the net flow of energy of that system?
allan3141 5 months ago
@allan3141 It has everything to do with what you're asking, whether you can understand it is irrelevant. It will always cost to store or move energy
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago