Jonathan Sarfati playing 12 people simultaneously

[YodatheJedi12]

Dr Sarfati is an excellent writer but doesn't look very good on camera. No offence to him mind you.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@YodatheJedi12 He's not even particularly adequate when it comes to writing on biology.

[msofinowski1]

this guy needs to get himself into some Starcraft 2 tournaments

[IloveYOUviruses]

wish I had been in those conferences :s

[verzen]

Great chess player. Horrible scientist.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@verzen My guess would be highly functioning autistic.

[verzen]

@TheScienceFoundation

I have high functioning autism.. aspergers.. and I am becoming a scientist who understands evolution and science better than Sarfati. I won't bring up the holocaust in an attempt to think that the holocaust is evidence that evolution is false.. Which is an absurd claim to make and is absolutely repugnant to even bring up.

[5tonyvvvv]

@verzen Why because only atheists can be scientists? "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.

Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life, not time and chance!

[verzen]

"Why because only atheists can be scientists? "

Nope. Because he hasn't submitted any peer reviewed papers and in effect, all he is doing is mental masturbation by only allowing a select few... that he knows will agree with him to review his work. This makes him a horrible scientist. In retrospect, Dr. Kenneth Miller is a Catholic and a great scientist. He submits peer reviewed papers and allows anyone to review his work.

[verzen]

I also don't think you know know very much about RNA or how it synthesizes into amino acids which form proteins. Nor do you understand mutational changes.

If intelligence created life then what created that intelligence? If you claim nothing then you are a hypocrit because you are criticizing me for the same exact reasoning as to why you disregard evolutionary theory and abiogenesis. You aren't being logical. Not at all.

[themetanoied]

@verzen that is such a common argument. just think a little bit deeper. how is god defined? eternal. asking: what created an eternal being, does not sound very logic to me - that is also the reason why whoever was arguing with you wouldnt be a hypocrite since evolution and everything that comes with it exists in time. therefore something had to cause it by definition. anyway those are just 2 phylosophical views which should be confronted with experimentational scientific methods.

[verzen]

@themetanoied

Think a little deeper? LOLOL So your argument is "Just make this illogical assumption!" ??? LOL

"what created an eternal being, does not sound very logic to me"

An eternal intelligent being not needing to be created, but the universe, which would be far less complex, needing to be created is not logical at all.

[themetanoied]

@verzen part 1no, my advise for you is to learn how an argument works. in order to talk about an opposing position you need to understand the opposing position. if you dont you will just make a fool of yourself. what the bible claims is: god is eternal. he created time therefore is not bound to time. the universe is not eternal, it is created in time which is linked to matter and space (einstein). now everything existing in time has a cause. its as simple as that using deductive logic.

[verzen]

@themetanoied

Oh.. didn't catch the 3 parts till just now... I have to learn how an argument works? ROFL.. I was in debate for awhile at uni. I was a logic tutor for over a year. I'm pretty sure I know how an argument works.

I DO understand your opposing position. Your position is a special pleading argument. You want to violate your own rules. Everything MUST have a creator except for your claim, right? This is a logical fallacy bub.

[verzen]

"what the bible claims is: god is eternal. he created time therefore is not bound to time."

Prove it.

"the universe is not eternal,"

And? The process, which doesnt have to be intelligent and most likely is not, very well could be.

"it is created in time which is linked to matter and space (einstein). "

That's not what Einstein said. He said that space and time are the same thing.

[themetanoied]

@verzen part 2 noone who has some knowledge about christianity would actually debate this thing. doesnt matter if he believes it or not. the thing you can do is say: well i dont believe in the bible and what it says. and thats okay since it is your freedom to believe whatever you want. what i am saying is: you cant disaprove a theory without actually getting into it and prove it wrong from the inside. thats the way how we solve mathematical equations. if i want to prove the evo. theory wrong...

[verzen]

"noone who has some knowledge about christianity would actually debate this thing. "

LOL I was raised a Christian turned Atheist.

The bible isn't a theory. It's a myth. It makes no observational data and it has no way of advancing science in anyway.

Okay. Go ahead and try to prove evolutionary theory wrong. Use your best evidence.

[themetanoied]

@verzen many people are raised as christians, some even go to church but still have no idea what the bible actually says. the bible makes many observational data especially in terms of incredible historic accuracy. also if you would know anything about the history of science you would never say "it has no way of advancing science". i dont think youtube's comment section is the right place for such a huge debate, if you really want to do it you can pm me and i would be happy if you do

[themetanoied]

@verzen part 3 i would have to accept its claims to actually be able to prove that the system in itself is a lie. if i would just assume that the evolution theory is wrong from the start i wouldnt even be able to say why because i wouldnt know its claims.

[verzen]

@themetanoied

Wait.. what? You make no sense. And evolution is as much of a fact btw as gravity is.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@5tonyvvvv Once again, remaining retarded of the fact that RNA wouldn't have been floating around in the primordial soup all by itself isn't a valid argument. Read up on protocell and micelle formation.

[vdofam]

sweet!

[ssarfati1]

Thanks for this :) --MrsS