Unforgivable Lies of Abiogenesis!!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лип 2024
- Today we'll be responding to an animated video about abiogenesis, and why it's all a lie!
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=3308388
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/stores/professo...
Original Video: • Origin of Life: You Ca...
Further Reading:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11927...
elifesciences.org/articles/35255
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
He's on the lookout for semantic tom foolery because he recognizes that pattern from every intelligent design argument that has ever been made.
The ID hypothesis is bunk
@@kaliban4758 it's not a hypothesis - intelligent design was created as a marketing tactic for young earth creationists. It should be relegated to philosophical / theological discourse only. It's as scientific as SpongeBob SquarePants.
@@Philusteen it is the successor to creationism in that they are trying to get ID taught in public schools
If they had enough insight to recognise their own projection they probably wouldn't be creationists.
@@PhilusteenIt was at first, but the ID Camp has since expanded to include OECs and theistic evolutionists who began to distance themselves from the YECs. After the Dover trial.
His first sentence, about people trying to convince you they're smarter than they are, and he says "expecially".
Right before attempting to use (inaccurately) a bunch of grammar terms he knows his audience is likely unfamiliar with.
Considering chickens are related to dinosaurs, he could have picked a better example than comparing a dino chicken nugget to a t-rex.
An important point here is that he's not even attacking the science. He's attacking science communication. Yes, the UA-cam videos that he's referencing weave a story and neglect a lot of details but that's because they're science communication videos. They're attempting to repackage the science in a way that's more digestible to the laity. Complaining that science communication isn't 100% accurate doesn't do anything to debunk abiogenesis. All the things he's complaining that the videos don't cover are addressed by actual scientists but that's not the point of the videos. You would have to go after the actual science if you wanted to debunk it.
Exactly
he knows that, that is why he do it
Yeah, creationists complaining about science communication videos that are 10 minutes long for not being 100% accurate are just ridiculous. Those videos are supposed to summarize decades of research and hundreds of papers in a way that people without the scientific knowledge can actually understand.
That is where their knowledge comes from. None of them have ever went to a university or work in field or lab
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😊
Always excited for a new professor stick lecture
U I uu
"Imagination story-time land"... Yup, that is how I would describe Adam being made of dust and Eve being made from a rib. In fact, I think the bible would be better served if it was renamed: "Imagination Story-Time Land".
I second this suggestion.
Possibly "X-rated Imagination Story-Time Land - Keep Out of Children".
@@archapmangcmg Excellent. Would an allergy warning be too gauche? "WARNING* Written by Nuts*
@@tomsenior7405 LOL!
Oh, I don't know, its already called the buybull.
8:20
"In order to find claims that are so exaggerated, so removed from reality, we need to venture into"
The bible
Christians: "Giants and unicorns and sea monsters are just fantasy!"
Also Christians: "Trust the Bible!!!"
Yeah, everyone knows that people rising from the dead and getting pregnant while being a virgin is more believable and scientific.
@@archapmangcmg There are some christians that believe that giants actually existed based on some verses in the bible
@@archapmangcmg
Christians: So you‘re saying we‘re made from rocks? Humans are not made from rocks idiot!
Also Christians: So then my magic sky daddy took a handful of dust, put it together with some spit and then used his garlic breath to make it move.
@@blacky_Ninja To be fair, most Christians today are embarrassed by that silly story.
To be even fairer, most Christians for 2000 YEARS were not and actually believed it, just like those asses Ham and the Hovinds.
Ok, peak cringe idea: Christian Rock Group Ham and the Hovinds!
he is one of the DI goons, I think they made him for the younger audience
When I see that the source is the Discovery Institute I immediately translate it to Dishonesty Incorporated.
@@vestafreyja Hahahahahahahahaha, perfect
@@vestafreyjawill be using that from now on 😂
@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 Thank you.
He's just assuming that scientists use the same dishonest techniques that creationists do. Easy mistake to make when you don't have any experience outside your own bubble.
Okay. How did abiogenesis happen?
@@sentientflower7891
Read peer reviewed papers about recent experiments if you‘re really interested.
@@blacky_Ninja He's not interested. He just wants to play pigeon chess.
@@blacky_Ninja you should already know if you have an authentic interest in the subject.
@@Sauvenil how did abiogenesis happen? Aren't you educated?
You have it bang on when you say, 'creationists can't be trusted......'. Thanks for another great video. I learn something new from every one of your videos. Thank you
Can you be trusted? Please describe the abiogenesis event.
@@sentientflower7891Instead of trolling in the YT comments, go and read some science books and/or talk to real scientists. You might be surprised
@@David34981 What do you know? Nothing, obviously.
We will probably never know exactly how abiogenesis occurred. What we definitely do know is that the genesis creation myth is completely wrong. It is incorrect on every single detail. Origin of life science has made some really exciting discoveries recently. We discovered that all 5 nucleotide bases needed for life can be found in meteorites. The building blocks of life have just fallen from space.
@@sentientflower7891hen, according to Socrates, they are wiser than you for they _know_ that they know nothing while you profess to know something that you clearly do not.
I love it how the narrator in the video framed the last bit of scientific research as sheer fantasy, when creationists think the idea that a magic being spoke everything into existence is more rational to believe. The utter lack of self-awareness is astounding. They don't seem to be at all capable of hearing what is coming out of their mouths.
It will always be more rational to believe that something intelligent created the universe than believing that nothing created the universe.
Barely a dozen words in and the speaker tells us without telling us that he doesn't know jack about dick by saying 'eckspeshully' instead of 'especially'...
I assumed he was trying to convince people he was dumber than he actually is and/or trying to get you (or someone else that can be manipulated or mischaracterized into being a "common enemy that doesn't like the people learning about the real") to make such a comment and alienate the people that say it that way.
"People say something MUST have happened"
Also them: "It MUST have been sky daddy!".
That was what immediately stuck out to me! The pure hypocrisy of saying, "People only say MUST when they're not sure what really happened", when that is the entire crux of the creationist argument. LOL.
Claims regarding chemistry are testable and refutable.
@@sentientflower7891 Stop trolling. Put down your bible and go pick up an actual science book and learn all about it.
There is a reason why people (mostly young and educated) are leaving your religion in DROVES.
@@sentientflower7891so go test your hypothesis then… we’ll wait
@@joeschmo3844 the idea has already been tested and Miller Urey didn't result in life or any approximation of life.
"they combined" is NOT passive voice. That would be "they were combined" (by someone or something).
Ah, I made this comment as well! Nice to meet you, fellow grammar geek.
If creationists couldn't lie, could they say anything at all?
Oh man, my life is now enriched. Thank you!
@@sativaburns6705 Good use of the passive voice!
I've actually been to outright falsehood jungle. Yep, every single Sunday growing up until I was old enough to put my foot down and refuse to go.
Every accusation becomes a confession.
When he said "Let's visit outright falsehood jungle." I wasn't expecting that. I figured he must mean the video he was talking about and not his own.
What is the lie? Please be specific.
"Because the bible says it was all done by magic, and snakes can talk."
"Uh...Actually magic is from the davil, It's the 'supernatural miracles'"
@@burnforeverandever 🪄🤣
Abiogenesis is never observed occurring anywhere. Please explain.
@@sentientflower7891 We shouldn't expect to observe abiogenesis in the wild, the conditions today are not similar to the conditions on early earth when it would have occurred in nature.
@@sentientflower7891 Creationism is never observed occurring anywhere, please explain. (I would explain but the other comment did a good job for me)
Wow, creationists/ID apologists being intellectually dishonest.
I'm stunned.
What else did you expect? Their brains are vestigial.
How did abiogenesis happen? Reference whatever reliable source you wish.
@@sentientflower7891 You first. Remember, you're the one trying to challenge research done already with "jesus did it".
@@UltraCasualPenguin Abiogenesis didn't happen. It is quite literally impossible.
@@sentientflower7891 Abiogenesis did happen. It is quite literally possible.
“Imagination story time land..” said as a dig by a guy whose entire belief is a product of imagination story time land, start to finish. Whenever creationists attack anything in science, whether it’s evolution or abiogenesis, or anything else, and actually call it a “fairy tale” or any variation of that, apparently including imagination story time land, with a straight face, it’s just astonishing to me. The lack of self awareness is just next level stuff.
Abiogenesis technically speaking isn't science.
@@sentientflower7891you might want to have a chat with biologists who study it then, instead of wasting everyone's time being here, and not talking to biologists who would be able to explain in detail where you're wrong.
The original video is more amusing if you keep in mind that the world view they favor is based on late bronze and early iron age fairy tales about a sky wizard that magicked everything into existence!🤣
Just because a person is religious does not nullify everything they might say.
@@sentientflower7891 Not everything. But when it's about science that contradicts their wholly Fable, it kind of does.
@@David34981 Perhaps you are guilty of not bothering to listen. Abiogenesis is impossible. From the standpoint of chemistry abiogenesis is forbidden.
@@sentientflower7891There are plenty of experiments (including Millers experiment) that show abiogenesis to be very much possible. Yes the chance of it happening is very small, however even the very unlikely is bound to happen, given enough time (If you an entire planet of opportunities and billions of years of time, the unlikely becomes likely).
I also find it interesting that you accuse the other commentor of not listening while making unsubstantiated claims at the same time...
@@knodel2378 the Miller Urey experiment wasn't an abiogenesis experiment.
2:13 OK, I can’t use “it must have happened” as an argument. Go ahead, run me through the Bible without using “it must have happened, I’ll wait………….
It’s funny how a creationist can say “it’s easy to say things that aren’t true” and not stop, reflect, and then apologize for wasting our time.
Okay. You got amino acids. Now what?
@@sentientflower7891 Change your username to "Anaesthetised Weed." It would suit you better.
They don’t realize that even if they could disprove abiogenesis, it wouldn’t go anywhere near proving their god or anyone else’s 🤦🏻♂️
Creationists: "Notice how scientists use fuzzy words like 'likely' and 'probably.' This means that they're not sure, so they're wrong and you shouldn't listen to them."
Also creationists: "Notice how scientists used definitive words like 'must.' This means that they're making up stories, so they're wrong and you shouldn't listen to them.
That wasn't the argument.
@@sentientflower7891 Science depends on evidence. Science doesn't need to make up an argument like the religious do.
Have you actually read your bible? All of it?
Here,, let me give you some bible study.
Child Sacrifice
Judges 11:29-40 God loves to burn little girls. Deuteronomy 21:19-21. Stone kids. Joshua 6:21Kill babies with a sword. Genesis 22:2.burn your son.19:4-8 Lot (who God calls righteous) offers his virgin daughters up to be raped. Later he gets drunk and has sex with his own daughters. 1 Samuel 15:2:3/19,33.Kill all infants. 2 Samuel 12:13,18 God tortures a little boy to death. AMOS 1:13 God says it’s ok to rip out babies from the womb.2 Kings 2:23-24: 42”little ones” children are killed by two bears, for calling a prophet " baldy" Exodus 12:29-30.kill all the little boys. 13:2. Isaiah 14:21&13kill all the little kids. Lev 10:1-2. Psalm 137:9: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" Numbers 5:15 22,god tells husband how to force abortion on wife. Hosea 9:11-16.God says he will kill all their children. 13. God says to rip open all the women’s womb and kill all unborn babies.
SLAVERY’S OK WITH GOD.
This is not indentured servitude. Leviticus 22-10. 25:44-46 . 27. who makes a good slave. Exodus 21:2-6 how to trick a man into slavery. 21:7-11, 21:21. 13,20-2&26. how to beat your slave. Pass down your slave to your children as property. Ephesians 6:5 Be a good slave. Deuteronomy 20 10-14.. Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Timothy 6:1-5. so says Jesus. 12:41-48. Titus 2:9-10,15 1 Peter 2:18-20. 6:5. Slaves obey. Genesis. 9 , 25>27. Luke 12-37,38,45,46,47. God tells slaves to be good or get beaten. Ephesians 6:5 Slaves obey your master like you would Christ.
GOD LOVES TO KILL Psalm 137:9 >>babies are smite against rocks, Psalm 144:1 on the other -- "Blessed be the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle."Numbers 16:16-49: Death to all those who complain (14,950 of them altogether) Numbers.14:36-37.15:32/6. 16:35. 16:49. 21:3 / 21:35. 31:5, 7, 17,18. 6:6-11: ,. God kills someone for accidentally touching the Ark of the Covenant. What a jerk! 1 Samuel 15:2-3/19,33.Kill all infants. 2 Samuel 12: 13,18. Judges 1:4.. 1-8, 21. 3:29. 7:19-29.10-24. 3. 20:43-48. Deuteronomy 2:34-35god kills more kds..13:6-9 ,13:13-.7:16,19. 24,20:10-14. (21:19-21. Stone kids.) 22:13-21. Mark, 16:16 Jesus sends everyone to hell. ,Genesis 6:5.7:11,12. Josh 6:21,8:22-26,10:10_13, 11:11,11:21. Exodus 15,3 he god is a man of war. 9:6, 9:25, 10:15. 12:29,30. 21:15&17. 31:15.32:27. 35:2. 2 Kings 8:1,2. 19:24. 19:35.1Kings 2:35-34.15:29.20:28-30. God makes a wall fall and kill 27 000 of an army retreating from some Israelites . Zephaniah 1:7:18, 1:2-6. Jeremiah 50:21-22. Leviticus 10:1 >10:27,32,3336,37. 20:920:13. 24:16. 26:21_22. 27:28-29. Isaiah 37:36. 13:15-18.God has no mercy on infants, 45:7 god makes evil. JOSHUA 6:21,22 and 24.God says to kill babies.10:10 keep reading till 37. kill kill kill. LUKE 12:42-51. Matt 18:6.At min god kills 25,000,000. 2 Chronicles 13:17-18.21:18-19. GENESIS 38:7. Acts 12:23. plus countless children and innocent unborn. Ezekiel 9:5-7. And lots more killing if you bother to read your own bible.
RAPE
(kill little boys and rape little girls) Numbers 31:7-18 Deuteronomy 2:22-29. 25:19 23-29.20: 12,17. 21:10,13.Zechariah 14:1-2 Judges 5:30, 21:10-24. Genesis
@@sentientflower7891 The first part wasn't the argument in this particular video, but it is an argument that creationists use very frequently. And if the videos that the creationist referred to had used words like "likely" or "probably," then it almost certainly would be the argument that the creationist would use. I'm pointing out that a common creationist tactic is to make up reasons to deny science no matter what scientists are saying, essentially defining their opponents as wrong, and themselves as right. It's quite dishonest.
@@benjamindover5676 I hope you had that ready to copy-paste and didn't have to look it up. It'd be a shame if you put more effort into responding than numbweed7891 put into spamming their crap everywhere.
... and now that I've replied to it I can't see it any more. This site is *_weird_* these days.
So many cherries after all that picking!
Anyone want pie?
You'd think creationists like the taste of humble pie with all they have to eat.
"Here's a bunch of warning signs of people who are trying to mislead you. Let me tell you them, and give examples of me doing each!"
What was the lie? Please specify.
@@sentientflower7891 your warmongering comments are everywhere
omg hes debunking his own religion in the first two minutes😅😅😅
I guess the "Unforgivable lie" is his own BS
I grew up as a science enthusiast, something encouraged by my mom and grandparents. And for the past ten years, I've also engaged with a lot of skeptic and analytical content.
While science denial isn't new to me, I still can't help but be baffled by how many people think of experts as "liars" or "con artists."
When I look at how many engineers and scientists are emphatically passionate about their field and work, it's honestly disheartening to see so many others disingenuously try to discredit them and their work.
I understand that a lot of the denial is often religiously motivated, yet it often takes a malicious form that's honestly disturbing at times.
How did abiogenesis happen as you understand it?
@@sentientflower7891 Specifically for abiogenesis, I'm not fully clear on specifics of the subject-- but that's mainly because I haven't fully looked into the topic.
What I do understand is the general scope of the process--it's essentially the first step in the long, branching pathways that led to the first complex life forms. Basically a set of chemicals that bonded together over a large expanse of time, gradually forming the basic building blocks of the most primitive unicellular organisms. Logically, it tracks with the overall timeline of evolution--the further you go back, (generally speaking) the simpler creatures get.
As for my initial comment -- that was more of a broad reaction to the general phenomenon of science denial rather than the video in question.
@@The_Horse-leafs_Cabbage that's not how chemistry works. Your scenario doesn't work.
@@sentientflower7891 Then what's the alternative?
I can't comment on the chemistry, as I'm not well versed in that field.
But from a prehistoric and evolutionary perspective, what would fill in the gaps between an earth with no life and an earth with primitive unicellular organisms?
Not a rhetorical question-- I'm curious what your response would be
@@The_Horse-leafs_Cabbage nothing fills in the gap between non-life and life.
"They combine" is passive voice? I'm learning so much.
Why does it look like they made a cartoon of Forrest valkai?
Now that you mention it... The similarities are striking, especially the hair.
to pretend they are as smart as Forrest? :V
Dear creationists, please name one example of a natural explanation being replaced by a supernatural one. I'm waiting!
Abiogenesis is impossible. Did you need it?
@@sentientflower7891
That is not an answer to the question John asked.
@@blacky_Ninja Abiogenesis is a natural process, according to you. Not necessarily so according to chemistry.
@@sentientflower7891
How so?
@@blacky_Ninja chemistry doesn't create the molecules a cell requires. Chemistry doesn't purify and concentrate those chemicals.
I really don't understand what these kinds of people are trying to gain from straight up lying to their audience
How did abiogenesis happen? Please be honest.
@@sentientflower7891 You want me to be honest? Okay. I don't know. I'm not a scientist nor do I claim to be. I'm a musician who plays board games with his friends on the side, so I'm not exactly the person to ask. Now if you go and ask a proper scientist this same question they'll most likely have an answer. I could google this and probably find many research papers if you want but I'd much rather spend my time hanging out with friends or working on my album. Thanks
@@sentientflower7891how is that related to the comment?
This video demonstrate that the original video outright lie to their audience by stating that Be Smart Video dont give the reference, even though they do. If that kind of things they will lie to you, what else do they will lie to you?
Welcome back. Good job!
"It's easy to say things and get people to believe them!" He's warning you what he's about to do.
I love how as soon as they entered outright falsehood jungle, they started spewing outright falsehoods... lol
Indeed, Projection 101.
@@UncommonSense-wm5fd for sure
"I don't feel like sitting through a bad sense of humor"
So i guess professor stick and i would never get along because i tell lots of jokes, few of which are funny.
He does point out an important flaw in our teaching methods though.
I still remember being taught that the Urey-Miller experiments were the definitive proof of Abiogenesis when it wasn’t meant for that at all.
We shouldn’t be holding early experiments up as THE conclusive evidence but instead teach that they were only a single step along the way.
It was a single experiment that gave us clues, not answers.
This is the first video I've seen from this channel. It was a great first impression.
So by "no reference was provided" he means "I didn't bother to look into it further"
Yeah, that tracks.
Perhaps you haven't bothered to actually learn science?
The semantics one is a bit ridiculous
The use of past tense made sense because well, it happened in the past.
The one that got me is "went extinct"
Well it is true in their context because it went extinct, it is extinct now but the proses of going extinct happened in the past.
It was like saying, "a mexican went to USA and now he lives here"
The uses went is correct because the process of moving happened in the past.
It seems most apologists are so used to being dishonest that they assume everyone else is dishonest as well.
Funny how their own deliberate misinterpretation of the word “must” never gets applied to their own own claim that there “must” have been a creator… almost like they are dishonest or something.
Ok, to be fair, I can grant that the phrase "must have" is not the best choice of words in these kinds of instances, but "combine" and "went extinct?!" What!?
Water is the result when hydrogen and oxygen _______.
Tyrannosaurus Rex is no longer around because they ____ _______.
What is misleading about these statements? I don't understand how they arrived at the idea that "combine" and "went extinct" were somehow incorrect, even in context of what they were referring to.
The combining is the problem from the standpoint of chemistry.
Thank you. The using of smartphones to deny science is something that really drives me nuts. The mastery and understanding of materials on an atomic level, and the same level of understanding of light and radio waves are the culmination of wildly different aspects of hundreds of years scientific effort. And these are the scientific processes used to measure and quantify everything around us. The evolution 9f data storage alone should blow most peoples minds... But no I'm gonna use my phone to post "science is wrong, lol".
Abiogenesis is a chemistry question so your smartphone is irrelevant.
@@sentientflower7891 there's no chemistry or biochemistry in your smart phone? What about that that lithium ion battery or the organic light emitting diodes in the screen?
@@sentientflower7891 ooh how about that Corning gorilla glass, or the plastics in the body? Nope no chemistry there.
@@sentientflower7891 are we sure about your sentience? Now that could use further study lol.
@@sentientflower7891 you basically proved my point. A total lack of understanding of the world around you, an understanding that science seeks and grants to people who try just a little to comprehend.
ay great channel you earned a new subscriber.
great video as always, thnx!
Unless I'm mistaken, the chicken is a decendant of the trex. So the Dino nuggets and the Rex are very similar.
They are both delicious.
From what I understand, the chicken isn’t a descendant, but the two aren’t all that far apart. Tyrannosaurs are among the closer relatives of avian dinosaurs (birds) if I remember correctly. This means that while the chicken isn’t a descendant, it IS somewhat closely related, at least in respect to dinosaurs as a whole. Since birds are dinosaurs anyway though, you could definitely argue that all chicken nuggets are dino nuggets! And yes, nuggets are very delicious.
The way that evolutionary biology works, is that we cannot be 100% sure that a creature is a direct descendant of another, unless we have sequenced both creatures DNA, and even then, direct descendency isn't really verifiable, just possible.
Being as how the Tyrannosaurus Rex is an extinct creature, DNA isn't possible, but thankfully we have other methods such as homology to determine ancestry. However, seeing as how we can't be sure we have an unbroken chain of descendants from the Rex to the chicken, we cannot claim that the chicken is a descendant of the Rex, but we can, via other methods, determine that the chicken, like other birds is an evolved descendent of some kind of therapod dinosaur, which were even then beginning to resemble future avian creatures.
It just seems really funny to imagine a massive T-rex evolving into a chicken.
Funny how religion considers "well known facts"(his own words) problematic to Faith
Perhaps you have your own faith.
@@sentientflower7891 Faith is stupid.
@@sentientflower7891 Science requires zero faith. Stop trying to drag us down to your level of stupid.
Creationist try to lie and be dishonest challenge (impossible)
But for real the “no citation” part pisses me off so much. Like is he lying or actually that incompetent 💀
Love stated clearly!
When are these guys gonna realize that in order to tear down the science, they need to bring BETTER SCIENCE to the table. Sniping from the cheap seats isn't gonna get them anything but laughed at.
Oh, they know. They just don't have any.
Because they dont have better science.
I've had creationists throw phrases like "protein paradox" at me and then try evading explanation.
They have to misrepresent abiogenesis as spontaneous assembly of living cells, and assert "irreducible complexity" without using the exact words because it's been debunked so many times.
The current "scientific" attempts are the use of false mathematical models to disprove peptides to proteins or DNA formation. Often by ignoring the existence of catalysis.
Have you seen the recent debate between Professor Dave and James Tour on the origins of life? James became rather unhinged during that debate and did nothing but insist that all the research that Dave presented was false or meaningless. Good stuff.
Professor Dave offered no Abiogenesis scenario at all.
@sentientflower7891 except he did but you can't accept reality.
@@stefansmith4313 okay, what method of Abiogenesis does Professor Dave believe?
@sentientflower7891 I don't know why don't you ask Dave instead of spewing your bullshit about something that you don't understand?
@@sentientflower7891
I'm not sure if Dave mentioned it specifically in that debate but he's done a couple collaborative response videos to the debate and since he's not a liar like James tour he acknowledges that it is not known for certain exactly how life arose and we might never know but there is a plethora of verifiable information which point to a variety of possible mechanisms through which life could have arisen and that any one or combination of these could have been what happened.
Theists don't seem to realise that no matter how hard they pick away at what they think are flaws in current scientific explanations, it doesn't mean that the explanation they're offering (i.e. a magic sky-wizard did it) is going to become the leading theory again. The world simply isn't going to default back to a Bronze Age fariytale explanation, no matter how much they wish it would.
You aren't listening so please do bother to listen and learn.
@@sentientflower7891 I'll listen to any explanations that _don't_ involve magical entities doing conjuring tricks. It's cute that you think mankind's first baby-guess was correct, though.
Official request for part 2 please.
The creationnist video looks like an attempt at damage control. They took a serious hit when Professor Dave DEMOLISHED James Tour.
When the alleged neutral moderator has to bias the debate for Dr Tour you know he's dking badly!
If he's arguing semantics, then we can do the same!
The bible describes a form of abiogenesis. Man is literally created using eath and dust, aka non biologicak matter, and then given life. That's religious abiogenesis
Sorry but the Bible says nothing about the origin of life, the creation narrative actually describes the origin of species without betraying any comprehension of life or cells or molecules.
@@sentientflower7891how did you think that was going to be a point in creationisms favor?
The book literally says god created all life in a week, and you somehow think that because it didn't explain how god did that on a molecular level, it's somehow... superior?
@@Thoron_of_Neto anyone who imagines that the Bible says anything at all about Abiogenesis is not a serious thinker.
@@sentientflower7891 Anyone who thinks abiogenisis isn't about life from none life is not a serious thinker.
The book describes life from none life. Abiogenisis. Simple.
How would abiogenesis occur if all the amino acids would be surrounded by toxic garbage
Thanks for the video :)
Great job, Professor! I hate when they lie!
but they always lie!
@@robertl4824oh come on, Robert, they don't _always_ lie. For instance there's this channel that...well, no...
Oh, this one guy says that, no...
Huh. Actually that checks out, they do always lie. As you were.
What is the lie?
@@sentientflower7891 thank you for commenting on every other comment. I'm sure the prof appreciates the engagement, and it helps in the algorithm. Now of only you had something sapient to say
@@sativaburns6705 None of you people seem to know anything. The professor perhaps failed.
Here's a fun little nitpick: 'They combine', or even 'they combined', is not passive; it's very much in the active voice. As long as the subject of the sentence remains the do-er and doesn't become the object, it's active. 'They were combined' is passive because it implies that a different, unnamed subject did the combining (which appears to be what the presenter is attempting to say is happening in 'they combine', but they are incorrect). The example in very tiny print on the original video, 'I broke the vase' (active) vs 'The vase broke' (passive; though 'the vase had been broken' would make it more clear), demonstrates this well. So, wouldn't you know, some anti-science nerf herder on UA-cam is pretending like he's smarter than he is by using fancy-sounding language. Gosh. I'm gobsmacked.
Where's the fun part?
@@sativaburns6705 Touché, friend. Touché.
Please do a part 2!
The person's video starts with a big disclaimer with something like "This video is made in collaboration with 5 PhD scientists"
I'm in a weird position because I believe in science and evolution and everything (including the fact that we live on a round earth. I haven't gone that far off the edge to become a flat earther.) But I still believe that there's a God or a higher power out there. Whether it be true or not, believing in God, got me to this point in my life where I got clean off of drugs (two years and three months clean), I'm in a relationship with the love of my life who I lost because of being on drugs and I just gave birth to my son April 30, 2023 after trying for years and finally being told a few years ago that it would be almost impossible for me to conceive. It's gotten me to such a great place in my life so I'm not against believing in a God or a higher power. I don't think it's okay to shove your religion or anything else that you believe down everybody else's throats and I think it's stupid to believe 100% what the Bible says because there are so many things in there that are outdated and make no sense. But if believing in God allows you to have a great life and get through some really difficult things, then, I don't see anything wrong with that.
As Aron Ra would put it, whether you believe in God or Not or whether they exist or not is irrelevant. Evolution and other fields of science would still be true.
As much as I don't like the use of the concept of religion for comfort as I think it's a false one, science denial would be much worse. Most "evolutionists" are religious after all.
Whatever does it for you!
Just like... don't use your belief as a platform from which to attack women, LGBTQ, or secular society in general?
Religion IS a drug. It might ruin your life less than a physical drug addition but it's still a psychological drug. It's a series of lies that people tell themselves to cope with various issues. It's not a healthy mindset, in the slightest.
In fact, if you stated on the path of religion with a church-run rehab center, that's part of the scam. They run those rehab centers because they are allowed to require the members to take part in church services so they purposefully try to get people to trade one addiction for another, preying on them while they're in a very vulnerable state. That's why the church operates so many of them.
If it helps you get by, that's better than the alternative but, ultimately, everyone would be much better off without using religion as a crutch or coping mechanism.
Your entitled to your beliefs. Just as i am to mine (agnostic pantheist).
The actual problem is twofold:
1) imposing those beliefs onto others
2) denying science because it conflicts with those beliefs
The wrongdoers always believe themselves to be wronged. Clear example of what living in an echo chamber does to a guy.
It's clear something created us, if you cant see that you're full of yourself or just plainly deny it. But use your eyes and brains outside of what you're taught in school
Personal incredulity
@@Canaanitebabyeater haha yeah that's the issue
@Dmaj089 yeah you guys tend to struggle with that
@@Canaanitebabyeater how about we both say we don't know exactly. Both can't be proved, can they?
@@Dmaj089 That's the only honest response anyone can give. I'm glad we can agree on that.
“…you actually have to go through dozens and hundreds of other papers…” - Creationists reading scientific papers? You’re such a hoot!
He probably believes the earth is flat. Lmfao. 😂😂
By self replicating, the ID proponent means that an entity replicates it's entire self completely and not simply replicating only a portion of a self. The original video it was responded to stated that ribosomes could copy thenselves, which seems to imply the entire self. The argument is that there is zero self replication of this sort.
The DI = Imagination Story Time Land.
Bless your heart
I'm subscribed! Don't throw me into the wolf pit!
If it wasn’t triplets we’d not have enough “letters” to form all the chromosomes
If someone says "must have happened" it really means they aren't sure; hence, zombie carpenter. Checkmate science nerds! 🤦♂
Happy holidays everyone!
PS: Axial tilt is the reason for the season.
PPS: Jesus is long dead; he became worm food. The only lives Jesus saved were those of a few worms that feasted on his rotting corpse.
Fine example of an Atheist, Insulting the Religion of millions of people in such a vile way.
4:10 You just had to pause it on that frame, didn't you? Yeesh that's horrifying!
The following is a true story. I hung a picture last night, when I came home from work today it had fallen from the wall and the string I had used to hang it had snapped. “That string _must_ not have been strong enough” I said to myself.
But I mean who can say what the _real_ explanation is.
The answer is 'elves.' Obviously, your home is infested with elves. These mischievous little buggers seldom like change, and your new picture was a change they didn't like. So they took their sharp little knives and cut the string holding up the picture. Thus returning your wall to its previous state.
They can be gotten rid of, but it's usually an exorbitantly expensive process. I know a guy though, and he can get it done for the low, low price of $300 per treatment. Treatments are bi-weekly and must be performed for at least a year, with no one else in the house at time of treatment, and no active electronics, just to be sure that all of them are accounted for, so that reinfestation does not occur.
OK that text portion you are reading out at 10:20 has me lost.
I’m glad you’re here doing gods work. I use that phrase loosely but still, pointing out why these people are cherry picking things to “prove” their point. Because they don’t understand science at all…
Life started. That's an obvious fact. We don't know EXACTLY how it did start, but we do have some good leads. Then, life started to evolve. BUT, as that early life was made up entirely of unicellular organisms AND it was about 3 billion years ago, we can't expect to find any fossil.
Just what does that moron mean by «toxic» ? Toxic to modern life ? Sure. Toxic to early life ? Probably not, but likely ESSENTIAL to that early life.
How can these people be stopped? They’re indoctrinating kids that they need to beg for forgiveness for existing and thank a magic wizard man for processes that are spectacular enough without adding an abusive relationship to the mix. Makes me sick. Hopefully the decline of religion keeps growing.
Yes, please! I think it’s no accident that some of the happiest, lowest crime & poverty countries are the ones with the least amount of religion.
"See how they slipped into the past tense as if these things are proven?"
But... don't creationists do that constantly with the bible?
Ngl.... A chicken nugget is remarkably similar to a T-Rex...
Science deniers keeps missunderstanding and ignoring stuff. No suprises there. Nice to see pro stick still debunking after all this time.
I have one simple rule: If you're an adult and can't pronounce "especially" correctly, barring any sort of impediment, then I take nothing you say seriously.
Some people say expresso and pacifically and as a non-native English speaker, I find it okay as long as I understand. Personally speaking, I don't dismiss an argument based on their pronunciation/spelling but let say if they're misrepresenting the actual meaning of atheism while spelling atheism incorrectly despite claiming to have researched about it, then I'm definitely gonna use that as supportive argument on their ignorance and dishonesty
@brandonng2883 See, I find there's often a much higher chance someone is about to make a terrible, poorly thought out argument when they can't even pronounce common words correctly. (Non-native speakers excluded simply because a lot of nuance comes from living in a culture with your native tongue.)
It's like if a debate begins and one of the debaters mispronounces their interlocutor's name. If you have so little respect for yourself, those you're talking to AND your audience, why would I assume you respected the argument you're about to present well enough to present it and have it be something I should care about?
It's not that it makes you wrong, it's that at that point you've signaled that I shouldn't give a shit, because you clearly don't.
@@Xbob42 I think using name as example is faulty to say the least because if the interlocutor's name is a foreign name, chances of mispronouncing it is high. So, nuances like non-native speaker can be excluded but not like these? Besides, the person in the video only mispronounced one word that is "especially" which is very petty to be considered worthy of dismissing one's entire argument. Despite what your experience told you, high probability is not a certainty. Imagine if they ask what is it that you don't agree with and your entire argument is just "because you mispronounced", then you're just doing the same as the ones who use appeal to stone argument as rebuttal. I mean, you used a scenario like a debate or a dialogue. You're there to present your argument and if you argue with pressuposition of "mispronunciation = high % of bad argument", I'm sorry we'll have to disagree.
Judge by the content of their argument but not because of their mispronunciation. Sure, you may point those out but to not take your interlocutor seriously? Then why even bother being in a debate/dialogue?
@@brandonng2883 If you can't take the time and effort to at least attempt to pronounce your interlocutor's name correctly (and make it clear that you might be pronouncing it incorrectly, if you can't tell I'm mainly talking about what are often bad faith actors such as William Craig) then yeah -- I don't really care what you have to say.
You're not wrong in saying that that doesn't make them wrong, but I'm not obligated to give my time to anyone, petty or not. I just don't have it in me to try so hard with people who, by all appearances, aren't trying at all. Good on you if you give them the time of day, you're a more patient person than I.
@@Xbob42 no, I meant to say mispronouncing name is considered nuances the same way you considered non-native speaker can be excluded and as we all know, names don't adhere to language or their pronunciation associated to the spelling. The name "Michael" can be pronounced as Mikail but this isn't just about the ignorant part of the interlocutor. What if the name is foreign to the person mispronouncing it? By definition, attempting to pronounce something that isn't native to their language would make them "non-native speaker" in that sense. Hence, the reason why I disagree with you using name as example.
I am fine if you say you don't have the time to entertain those lads but what I disagree with (other than the aforementioned) are:
1) the example you gave is in a debate/dialogue setting. That means you already have the time for that and to dismiss one's argument because of mispronunciation, name or words, is fallacious.
2) bad pronunciation = bad argument. My written English is average but my pronunciation may be wrong due to accent. That's why I don't pressuppose one to have bad argument just because they say words incorrectly, unless the words spoken incorrectly are what they claimed to have researched thoroughly.
Well, I don't consider myself patient but if I already decided to invest time into listening to their argument, I should at least not nitpick on semantics unless I have to (if relevant). If I don't wanna invest my time, well, I would walk away the moment I hear fallacious argument no matter how eloquent they are.
Interesting video.
How would he simulate early earth if it would take several days of a constant electric source. It’s not like you would have a electric generator that many years ago
Perhaps the earth started as a scientific experiment to debunk the young earth creationists of a billion years ago.
Have you seen the "discussion/debate" between Dave Farina and Dr. James Tour? What a treat...
Dave Farina is great at bluster but nothing else.
13,8 billion years in the making and you still end up with knob ends.
So... the cartoon is spending time in half-truthiland and falshood jungle... sad. Here I thought the cartoon would come up with legitimate complaints instead of deliberate lies. *Shrugs* Just shows us that cartoons aren't trustworthy sources. Who would have thought that!
The amount of projection by this creationist would bankroll a therapist's new holiday home.
Creationist complains that different chemicals than the ones present in the prebiotic earth were used in the miller/ray experiment.
Creationist also complains that the results of the experiment were lost in toxic byproducts.
How does the creationist know the same would have happened if the same chemicals as a prebiotic earth had been used?
The point is to misrepresent "it didn't happen exactly like this" as "it could never happen at all"
The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer
ua-cam.com/video/ZLzyco3Q_Rg/v-deo.html
Energy and Matter at the Origin of Life
ua-cam.com/video/vEZJdK5hhvo/v-deo.html
How Life Evolves with Professor Nick Lane
ua-cam.com/video/PJimi8ocg5Q/v-deo.html
The Whole History of the Earth and Life 【Finished Edition】
ua-cam.com/video/NQ4CUw9RcuA/v-deo.html
10:04 man got bars
The thing is, there are multiple possible pathways for abiogenesis.
Some of which are RNA assembling from ribonucleotides on clay surfaces under changing conditions, which creates random RNA strains, there are numerous lengths and variations capable of what's basically self replication.
So now with the enough time these RNA strains can cumulate in pools or shoresides of lakes for example, where phospholipids are present.
These phospholipids tend to accumulate and even form tiny bubbles when stirred up.
Those self replicating RNA strains can obviously end up in such lipid bubbles, where it's going to be relatively protected from the surroundings.
And this is just one possible pathway for life.
It may be that other pieces of RNA entered such bubbles and combined to form new and better variations, it may be some degradation that sparked the ability of better replication, maybe something disastrous happened to help it turn into DNA.
I feel like I'm already taking way too long to explain this in simple terms, so I'll just stop now 😂
Yep not knowing exactly how something was done don't mean it didn't happen. I mean someone who travels from New York to Los Angeles could have done so in a huge number of ways so I guess they never made the trip.
@@mattm8870 exactly
@@mattm8870 wait no, he was obviously created in LA by God.
RNA World isn't an actual thing. Sorry.
@@sentientflower7891got some evidence for that claim? Take it to some biologists. Win a Nobel Prize for narrowing the field by such a large margin. I suspect I won't be seeing you in the news though because you're just regurgitating this nonsense.
His argument is based on not understanding English, And personal incredulity, Wonder if he is a Flurf too?
I think you both have good points. Science communicators do use words like "it MUST have" to mean that "It couldn't have happened any other way or we would be wrong and well we can't be wrong". Although time and time again science keeps changing its mind about what we "simpletons" should accept as "truth". That's the nature of science though, to keep learning. I just wish most science communicators wouldn't be such... what's the word... easy targets. By presenting something as facts and hard truth when in reality the only thing we have is a commonly accepted theory that may change when new evidence is brought forth it does make people skeptical. Just being a bit more humble when presenting these commonly accepted theories would go a long way to garnering trust and wouldn't put doubts in people's head and give a foothold to people who like to spout their completely unfounded ideas like flat earthers... That being said these flat earthers and creationists really shouldn't use semantics to argue their point it makes them look foolish even more so then their ideas do. So yea you both got points here.
Perhaps you don't comprehend the problem with your amino acids.
@@sentientflower7891I think it’s more that you don’t comprehend the problem with your ‘god.’
@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 Abiogenesis is the only scientific question that relies upon atheism as its foundation argument.
Much projection such wow!