You’ve lost the thread of our conversation. I haven’t watched the video, didn’t claim to, I asked you a side question pertaining to your religious beliefs (it is the Spirituality forum after all) and the ramifications they have for mankind’s understanding of the cosmos and the natural world. You were quite happy to answer them for a while then went off on a tangent. You did as you always seem to do when questioned on the specifics of your YEC doctrine, disappear off into vagueness.
You’ve lost the thread of our conversation. I haven’t watched the video, didn’t claim to, I asked you a side question pertaining to your religious beliefs (it is the Spirituality forum after all) and the ramifications they have for mankind’s understanding of the cosmos and the natural world. You were quite happy to answer them for a while then went off on a t ...[text shortened]... ways seem to do when questioned on the specifics of your YEC doctrine, disappear off into vagueness.
I started the thread about overcoming the odds. I responded to your young earth question, and didn't disappear into vagueness, I'm staying on the topic of this thread. As for mankind's understanding of the cosmos and natural world right now, I would say avoiding where the evidence leads will have profound effects on our understanding, but I think not for the reasons you are coming up with now. If we do not follow evidence where ever it leads, then science is no longer a pursuit of truth. What it will turn into is a weapon against ideas, a tool for the protection for some world views. That should never happen, questions and answers should be freely debated not shut down.
You’ve lost the thread of our conversation. I haven’t watched the video, didn’t claim to, I asked you a side question pertaining to your religious beliefs (it is the Spirituality forum after all) and the ramifications they have for mankind’s understanding of the cosmos and the natural world. You were quite happy to answer them for a while then went off on a t ...[text shortened]... ways seem to do when questioned on the specifics of your YEC doctrine, disappear off into vagueness.
What specifically do you want to know about my YEC?
@kellyjaysaid They were dealing with the numbers they knew, and kept the desired outcome to just a single protein. The second video talks about a small sliver of the required variables, you disagree with the presentation of how the numbers arrived at?
Thats not what I asked you. What I asked was - Do the filmmakers know ALL of the variables? Yes or no?
I have to assume you are speaking to ID and undirected processes. I think it is a slam dunk on designs side, random acts couldn’t do something this complex under perfect conditions let alone in the midst of a hostile environment!
@kellyjaysaid I don’t think anyone does, but that doesn’t stop anyone from doing the math on what they do know!
Correct, so you should at least show the numbers in this video the same level of scepticism you show the modelling by climate scientists.
To answer your question about the video - You should do your research before posting. The claims made in that video have been debunked. The makers appear to be either dumb or praying on people ignorance of biology.
@stellspalfiesaid Correct, so you should at least show the numbers in this video the same level of scepticism you show the modelling by climate scientists.
To answer your question about the video - You should do your research before posting. The claims made in that video have been debunked. The makers appear to be either dumb or praying on people ignorance of biology.
@stellspalfiesaid Correct, so you should at least show the numbers in this video the same level of scepticism you show the modelling by climate scientists.
To answer your question about the video - You should do your research before posting. The claims made in that video have been debunked. The makers appear to be either dumb or praying on people ignorance of biology.
There are differences between the two with the video it’s all numbers and time. Nothing is left to the imagination while that is not true with the assumptions of making claims by simply looking at some data and applying results about things that can not be falsified.
If you don’t like how they came up with the variables, insert the ones you would like to replace them with, but I doubt new numbers will improve the outcome.
@kellyjaysaid There are differences between the two with the video it’s all numbers and time. Nothing is left to the imagination while that is not true with the assumptions of making claims by simply looking at some data and applying results about things that can not be falsified.
If you don’t like how they came up with the variables, insert the ones you would like to replace them with, but I doubt new numbers will improve the outcome.
@stellspalfiesaid How confident are you with biology?
I'm more confident with design and numbers. Which is what that second video was about. I'm not sure if you watched the second one someone in the field was going over the numbers.
You can debunk it yourself by answering this single question - Find an evolutionary biologist who supports the claim made in that video that the first proteins spontaneously arose?
Here’s the answer - there isn’t one. This video is nothing more than a straw man argument created by some wacko YouTube nobody, who interestingly has blocked all comments on this video as he knows people can quickly debunk the content. But for people like yourself who are seduced by such misinformed nonsense, it looks very sexy and appealing.
You can debunk it yourself by answering this single question - Find an evolutionary biologist who supports the claim made in that video that the first proteins spontaneously arose?
Here’s the answer - there isn’t one. This video is nothing more than a straw man argument created by some wacko YouTube nobody, who interestingly ...[text shortened]... people like yourself who are seduced by such misinformed nonsense, it looks very sexy and appealing.
They either arose through undirected processes, or a directed ones, they have not always been here. It doesn’t matter what is being suggested if they were either formed all at once or a little at a time the odds don’t change. You look at the odds in the second video yet? Nothing supernatural in it, simple math looking at the parts and what is required.
Here is the answer, "this isn't one", this mean instead of a magic air fairy as some like to call God's design, its ahhh we don't know, just accept it? You realize the people bringing these questions are also biologist and from other disciplines of study. These are not want-a-be scientists instead very serious inquire by well educated people in the fields.
Origin :) the numbers
15 Feb '19 09:52
YouTube
Back to Top