Evolutionist contradict themselves and debunked-Story of Creation is Biblical Fact

[Shadow Wolf]

Also consider that the universe is not too big for us to know, you just quoted the number of stars, and many cosmologists including atheists, have marveled at how the universe so lends itself to our understanding

It pretty much is too big for us to ever gain a complete and total knowledge of it. Even if we could travel faster than light, it would take hundreds and thousands of years to reach anywhere beyond a certain point.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am starting through the video series; though I doubt I will make it through the whole thing.

I find some glaring red flags within the first 5 minutes:

1. The "debunker" is not an astronomer or astrophycist; he was an engineer; thus his credibility should be called into question right off the bat. If I want my car fixed, I don't take it to a medical doctor; so if I want to know about Astronomy, I should go to an Astronomer; not to an Engineer.
2. The comment about "most scientists believed in creation" until just about a "hundred years ago" is an appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum; and has nothing to do with fact. It is quite manipulative.

Continuing on for now ...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Our "engineer" convolutes ToE with Astrophysics and Astronomy; another nauseating error parrotted all too often by the creationist. If you want to debunk evolution, then at least stick to evolution. If you convolute evolution with astrophysics with abiogenesis, then you have already told me that you do not understand the subject matter which you are speaking about.

Continuing on for now ... (I'm less than 10 minutes into the garbage) ...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

He claims that "evolutionists" say that the "solar system" formed all by itself; but no "evolutionary biologist" makes any unsupported or unsubstantiated claim about astrophysics; they aren't even in the same discipline. Moreover, we have a few hypothesis about how the planets were formed; but the debate is still out there. Thus the idea that astrophysicists "claim" they "know" how the planets were formed is a blatant lie.

I'm still less than 10 minutes into these vids ...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It pretty much is too big for us to ever gain a complete and total knowledge of it. Even if we could travel faster than light, it would take hundreds and thousands of years to reach anywhere beyond a certain point.

Well sure, we don't have to explore every solar system to marvel at the scope of the universe, just as we don't have to see every leaf to marvel at a great tree.

But the extraordinary thing is that we can know it at all, we are the only means we know of, by which the universe can ponder it's own existence!

The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

"Straight forward issue", he says: "Either the solar system was created ... or ... it wasn't." I guess he's never heard of a "false dichotomy?" A favored tool of creationists ... a tool that fails, does so consistently, yet they continue to use it ...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He claims that "evolutionists" say that the "solar system" formed all by itself; but no "evolutionary biologist" makes any unsupported or unsubstantiated claim about astrophysics; they aren't even in the same discipline. Moreover, we have a few hypothesis about how the planets were formed; but the debate is still out there. Thus the idea that astrophysicists "claim" they "know" how the planets were formed is a blatant lie.

I'm still less than 10 minutes into these vids ...

The connection is that it's the same problem, that both classical evolution (Darwinism) and classical physics suffered from, entropy. Simple laws = simple results.

The concept that physics required a deeper layer of mysterious unpredictable guiding forces to function, was considered religious pseudoscience before Max Planck and quantum mechanics.

No coincidence that Planck was a skeptic of atheism.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The concept that physics required a deeper layer of mysterious unpredictable guiding forces to function, was considered religious pseudoscience before Max Planck and quantum mechanics.

"deeper layer of mysterious unpredictable guiding forces to function" as religious pseudoscience, I would stipulate, still remains religious pseudoscience" as the "mysterious" guidng force can't be "unpredictable" and still be considered "science" (as science seeks to form predictive models of reality) and what is once "mysterious'", through discovery, often becomes "known"; moreover, the connotation herein seems to be that the "guiding force" needs to be "supernatural", "intelligent", "concious" (or any combination thereof); none of which is required.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

LoL, now our commentator is using astrophycist's declaration of humility; not knowing the answer as to being able to describe the formation of the planets as a weapon against them, LoL. And we have the same ol' logical error: "If we don't have it all figured out then we know nothing and if we know nothing then God did it, I win". LoL.

Hey, OP, did you really have you kid watch this? I certainly hope that this garbage (which I have stopped watching after less than 10 minutes) passes for education ...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"deeper layer of mysterious unpredictable guiding forces to function" as religious pseudoscience, I would stipulate, still remains religious pseudoscience" as the "mysterious" guidng force can't be "unpredictable" and still be considered "science" (as science seeks to form predictive models of reality) and what is once "mysterious'", through discovery, often becomes "known"; moreover, the connotation herein seems to be that the "guiding force" needs to be "supernatural", "intelligent", "concious" (or any combination thereof); none of which is required.

By which definition quantum mechanics is not science... that's a far more radical stance than Skip's, you should make vid on that!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am completely ignorant of quantum mechanics. I am about as qualified to make a video on that as I am qualified as this guy is to make a video about astronomy.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am completely ignorant of quantum mechanics. I am about as qualified to make a video on that as I am qualified as this guy is to make a video about astronomy.

me too, but

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities[1] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

aka inherently unpredictable forces

religious pseudoscience

strange but true!

now consider

Quantum biology
Early pioneers of quantum physics saw applications of quantum mechanics in biological problems. Erwin Schrödinger published What is Life? in 1944 discussing applications of quantum mechanics in biology.[3] Schrödinger introduced the idea of an "aperiodic crystal" that contained genetic information in its configuration of covalent chemical bonds. He further suggested that mutations are introduced by "quantum leaps." Other pioneers Niels Bohr, Pascual Jordan, and Max Delbruck argued that the quantum idea of complementarity was fundamental to the life sciences.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I will have to look into that more deeply. Thank you.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

That sounds intuitively illogical right? but

ever play minecraft? it's practically infinite world must have accidentally created itself also, since no intelligent being would intentionally create something so vast right?

You might as well say existence of any form can't exist without a creator. But a creator necessitates existence already.

No one argues that Mindcraft is fine tuned to support life. It's a video game meant for entertainment. Nothing more. When one argues that the Universe -- which has countless lifeless planets and minuscule areas of habitability -- is created entirely for us human beings, including every little thing in it, then that's a problem. Players of Mindcraft aren't inhabitants of the world inside the game. They are outside of it, free to tinker with it to their liking.

Now unless you're arguing that God created this universe with its inhabitants, so that some other godly being can purchase it, take it to his godly home and play on his godly gaming computer system, and tinker with its features for its own enjoyment, I say your analogy is void. Such a universe meant for the entertainment of deities, made by deities for deities, isn't a universe fine tuned for us. A video game designed to entertain the player, isn't a fictional universe fine tuned to cater to the fictional characters in it. You have to consider the purpose of Mindcraft and why it was created. Mindcraft looks exactly like what we know it's meant for. This universe is nothing like what you creationists try to make it out to be.

Also, no one here is saying an intelligent being wouldn't create something. We're saying the creation of something doesn't necessitate an intelligent creator with intention. I have a huge pet peeve of people putting words in my mouth. Please don't do it again.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You might as well say existence of any form can't exist without a creator.

I would agree with that, that ultimately nothing can exist without purpose, creative intelligence, because that is the only phenomena that can truly create anything, rather than be constrained by an infinite regression of cause and effect

No one argues that Mindcraft is fine tuned to support life. It's a video game meant for entertainment. Nothing more. When one argues that the Universe -- which has countless lifeless planets and minuscule areas of habitability -- is created entirely for us human beings, including every little thing in it, then that's a problem.

exactly, we know the video game is designed creatively, intelligently, and it includes countless vast worlds, never to be explored and with relatively minuscule areas of actual practical use, just like the universe.. When vastness is merely a result of the math, it's not a problem at all.

neither the creator of Minecraft nor the universe (be it God or naturalistic event) was restrained by how many trips they could make to home depot to gather materials for the job! Awe inspiring size is no more 'expensive' to create than a tiny universe, so why not go big, even if for nothing more than inspiring awe in your creation?

Were we blind creatures feeling our way under the ice who could only ever remotely theorize about the wonders of the larger universe, this 'superfluous universe' idea might make sense

But in this case we are even given an almost perfectly transparent atmosphere to marvel at the heavens, front row seats to the grandest galaxy in the cluster, a perfectly sized mask for the sun, (the moon) allowing us to study the corona, the structure of stars, and hence the makeup of the larger universe. Even vast supplies of accumulated energy in convenient fuel, allowing us to reach the moon, planets and beyond.


Of course it's not technically impossible that all this is one extraordinary coincidence, just as it's not impossible that Minecraft was written by generating totally random code

I just think there are far less improbable explanations for both

 

[Valjean]

But what makes an invisible, magical personage, with no real evidence of his existence, a probable possibility at all? How is this not runaway agent detection?

 

[JesusFreaKMyHero1]

Another misconception.

Science does not bother itself with "truth". Science follows evidence to its most logical conclusion. All findings of science -- including that which we refer to as "laws" -- are subject to scrutiny and revision and refinement. "Truth" is never subject to scrutiny. This is why science does not seek "truth" in the philosophical sense; but instead seeks "facts" that help us form "predictive models of reality".

I see your point. What I mean is that science should seek the truth first then that truth becomes a fact. I just think it backwards. I believe, and you are correct that the truth is the truth and nothing can change it or stand against it. It is absolute. Truth means exactly the same thing in any and every sense,. The definition of a fact is something known to be true. Reality is a state of actual existence; fact or truth. So they are kind of the same thing, all 3 of them define each other.
So truth first, then fact, and then reality. The Big Question: What is the truth? That's just how I connect the dots in my head. I guess it's my logic of thinking. Enjoyed talking with you.

 

[JesusFreaKMyHero1]

But what makes an invisible, magical personage, with no real evidence of his existence, a probable possibility at all? How is this not runaway agent detection?

Hence Faith

 

[JesusFreaKMyHero1]

I would agree with that, that ultimately nothing can exist without purpose, creative intelligence, because that is the only phenomena that can truly create anything, rather than be constrained by an infinite regression of cause and effect



exactly, we know the video game is designed creatively, intelligently, and it includes countless vast worlds, never to be explored and with relatively minuscule areas of actual practical use, just like the universe.. When vastness is merely a result of the math, it's not a problem at all.

neither the creator of Minecraft nor the universe (be it God or naturalistic event) was restrained by how many trips they could make to home depot to gather materials for the job! Awe inspiring size is no more 'expensive' to create than a tiny universe, so why not go big, even if for nothing more than inspiring awe in your creation?

Were we blind creatures feeling our way under the ice who could only ever remotely theorize about the wonders of the larger universe, this 'superfluous universe' idea might make sense

But in this case we are even given an almost perfectly transparent atmosphere to marvel at the heavens, front row seats to the grandest galaxy in the cluster, a perfectly sized mask for the sun, (the moon) allowing us to study the corona, the structure of stars, and hence the makeup of the larger universe. Even vast supplies of accumulated energy in convenient fuel, allowing us to reach the moon, planets and beyond.


Of course it's not technically impossible that all this is one extraordinary coincidence, just as it's not impossible that Minecraft was written by generating totally random code

I just think there are far less improbable explanations for both

Sweet! I like it!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

exactly, we know the video game is designed creatively, intelligently, and it includes countless vast worlds, never to be explored and with relatively minuscule areas of actual practical use, just like the universe.. When vastness is merely a result of the math, it's not a problem at all.

neither the creator of Minecraft nor the universe (be it God or naturalistic event) was restrained by how many trips they could make to home depot to gather materials for the job! Awe inspiring size is no more 'expensive' to create than a tiny universe, so why not go big, even if for nothing more than inspiring awe in your creation?

In the general since of the argument, I do agree, but I don't think this possible creator is necessarily a god. Maybe life was created, maybe the universe is more than just a random event, but just because that is a possibility does not mean the next level, or creator, is a god. But, for all we know, our universe may just be a smaller part of much larger whole. And what if this "creator of life on Earth" is not the creator of the universe? What if our creator is just some "teenaged class clown" that intentionally did something wrong to make a cruel science experience/joke and here we are now?