Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@CrossExamined says : Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱https://cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl>> <<@TaxEvasi0n says : Origin of Life is all you need to see the absurdity of naturalism.>> <<@gerardmoloney9979 says : Anyone who believes in evolution has to have the answers to what came first, the hen or the egg. Was the egg fertilised, and what fertilised it! Was it the 🐓? Was he first? Answers please from any evolution believer. Nobel Prize awaits !>> <<@vhawk1951kl says : It is simply *Not_True* that those that subscribe to theory of unrolling(evolve means unroll) do not suppose it to be an adequate explanation for the origin of all sorts of things so the mutual masturbaters agreeing eachother off in the video are either lying or mistaken or both but my money is on lying. Moreover it is relevant to nothing whether or not those that subscribe to the theory of evolution doubt it - which they simply do *Not*. If I find a watch and look at the mechanism I don't need any of my various degrees to grasp that its elements or mechanism did not come together by pure chance, but that does not not*Not* tell me that the watch was designed and made by Joe Blogs of 14a acacia avenue Much Binding in the Marsh Wiltshire, who is 5'10 and has a particular fondness for Coquilles St.Jacques, nor does it tell me that Bloggs designed an made every single mechanism I encounter or may encounter, and no more does it lead me to suppose *anything_else* about the said Blogs, say perhaps that he is particularly fond of stars beetles and is frightened of left-handed badgers. Just because X appears to have been “*designed*” it does not *Necessarily* follow from that that everything that was clearly designed was designed by one and the same designer, or that anything can be known about the or any designer or designers. In their complete innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accompaniment, the mutal masturbaters clearly cannot grasp that it is perfectly possible for a being to try to be able to follow the way of christ (which the mutuals clearly could not if theirlives depended on it) and be an atheist., an attachment to the god fantasy not being required to try to practice the way of christ(the precise details of which are as unknowable as they are unknown, the mutuals are not just innocent of any kind of any kind of intellectual accomplishment or ability, they are deliberate liars, because it is simply not true to say that those that subscribe to the theory of evolution doubt it or that all or many of such beings doubt it, and the mutual masturbaters that delude them selves that the might be able to be able to christians know that, and it is not just a poor lie but a screamingly_obviously* transparent lie. The idea that either of the two innocent mutuals could be able to be able to be Christian is simply laughable given that neither of them has nor could possibly have any idea whatsoever of what the way of christ consisted, and no more does anyone else, it not being possible to discover of what the way of christ consisted, nor what the man prescribed for what.>> <<@LandonAshworthDirects says : We for sure aren’t doubting it. Hope this helps.>> <<@jamesw4250 says : They aren't.>> <<@LM-jz9vh says : *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei (Especially the first six paragraphs) *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! – Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Debunking the Devil – Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology – The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures – Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei>> <<@junacebedo888 says : Darwin theory is convulsing. And furthermore, physics is about to be overhaul. Billion years old universe could be decrease to just thousands of years.>> <<@gabrielgabriel5177 says : I have never believed in evolution>> <<@canadiankewldude says : Num 6:24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: Num 6:25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: Num 6:26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.>> <<@georg7120 says : 🐂💩>> <<@adelinomorte7421 says : ***you can believe in what ever you wont, even a car with square wheels, you also may not believe in any other thing, but our believes or disbelieves will never change what GOD creates, no matter how much you are rethorical about natural science , that is obvious that you are an ignorant in that, but you take airs of a knowledgeable person. There are some hope for you if you learn on how to read your bible and most important understand what you read, instead of divagating in areas that are absolutely not for you. I do not have any conflict in believing in the bible and understand what science says about anything as I understand how science works. ***>> <<@antonloubser says : God created (switched on) the main ethnicities at the Tower of Babel. Easy. That's why Ethnicities is closely related to languages.>> <<@walterdaems57 says : For Johny 1. Infinite age or chance appearance: This statement presents a dichotomy. While the universe's age is a subject of ongoing scientific research, the idea of it appearing by chance without cause is not widely accepted within scientific circles. 2. Purposeless, chance processes: This statement aligns with the scientific understanding of natural laws and constants, which are seen as the result of physical processes that have unfolded over vast cosmic timescales. 3. Life from inorganic material: The theory of abiogenesis proposes that life arose from non-living matter through a series of chemical reactions. While the exact details of this process are still being investigated, there is substantial evidence to support this idea. 4. Information arising from blind processes: The information encoded in DNA is a complex system that has evolved over billions of years through natural selection and genetic mutations. While the origin of the first self-replicating molecule remains a mystery, the subsequent evolution of life can be explained by natural processes. 5. Complex cellular machines and genetic features: These structures and functions have evolved through a gradual process of natural selection, with each step conferring a selective advantage. 6. Evolution by natural selection and random mutations: This is the core mechanism of biological evolution, and it is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific disciplines. 7. Universal common ancestry: The idea that all living organisms share a common ancestor is supported by the genetic similarities between different species.>> <<@dagwould says : 'Natural' selection only works in terms of the naive gross morphology fantasy world of Darwin: more influenced by Victorian hubris and Malthusian gloom than any observational evidence--which is why Darwin couldn't publish his long-promised book of evidence and observation. The only thing that we do see in the biological word is 'culling' if organisms are in an unsuitable environment. We might call this ecological filtering, but to hope that differential survival and reproductive rates, subject as they are to a vast array of circumstantial factors, result from only some fortuitous genetic mutation is nonsensical. The term 'natural selection' itself is a tendentious fabrication that attempts to give agency to 'nature', with hopeful reference to the very clear intelligent agency of breeders.>> <<@johnpro2847 says : yes ,small changes over hundred of millions of years add up to very large changes.>> <<@rolandwatts3218 says : If you are a Christian who claims to love and teach the truth, it's not a good idea to say silly things about the theory of evolution. If you go to mainstream scientific journals such as Science, Nature, PNAS, Cell, etc, you will see that scientists continue to accept the theory and that they continue to undertake research and learn about the process.>> <<@therick363 says : What’s an evolutionist? Do you call people gravitationalists? If not then I’ve made my point. I’ve never heard someone call a scientist a gravitationalist….and the only people I hear say “evolutionists” are those trying to misrepresent things and aren’t honest enough to say SCIENTISTS. Why is that?>> <<@MikelRC70 says : If the Bible said that the universe is billions of years old and that evolution is true then you evolution deniers would be saying "of course it's true." You may even be saying that it's only true because God caused it. In other words, you worship the Bible, not God.>> <<@praxitelispraxitelous7061 says : Do we need a new theory of evolution? Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian 2022 Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds. Douglas Axe. JMB 2004>> <<@frankc-k3q says : Evolutionist/atheist/pro-hamas 😂 Anti-constitution Anti-Christ Anti-American>> <<@inotterwords6115 says : Great scot... The arguments haven't changed. I remember Creationist textbooks using the old "common design, common designer" arguments from back in the sixties. For anybody who hasn't been introduced to the idea of homology yet, it's not simply the fact that "some life shares common traits", is that the common traits shared by different groups from a *pattern*. It's not just that the arm bones of tetrapods are similar, but that they are similar in a way that they don't share with other vertebrates, even vertebrates that share very similar functions. "Common design, common designer" doesn't explain this, because the common designer supposedly designed both the tetrapods limbs, AND the limbs of the vertebrates that don't share those structures. The theory of evolution explains this simply and clearly. Creationism doesn't explain it at all.>> <<@spencerpugh7855 says : What a load of rubbish. Please read 'why evolution is true' by Jerry Coyne. It explains the 5 tenets of evolution. variation, inheritance, selection, time and adaptation. It's a short book that covers a lot of ground, with absolutely no nonsense.>> <<@refuse2bdcvd324 says : God’s design is logical. Darwinism is mytho-logical.>> <<@MS-od7je says : Don’t even get into consciousness. Stephen Wolfrum claims that a rock is computationally equivalent to a human brain. Specifically that means the structure of the brain. So that a living brain is computationally equivalent to a dead brain and they are both computationally equivalent to a rock. Which means that the mind is not a computation.>> <<@MS-od7je says : Rats and cockroaches were the first to return to South Pacific islands where atomic bombs were tested and those creatures did not change morphology/species. They became polyploid in order to maintain the species. They have known this since the 1950s yet you never hear about it because it clearly goes against the paradigm. A recent redo of fish classification turns these mechanisms on their head. Dissimilar morphology appears to be closely related genetically throughout new classification based on genetics, Completely rearranging classification based on morphology. What it shows is that fish are fish! Fish adapt with similar morphology but different genetic based on environmental conditions. However they always are fish. Tortoise have different patterns on each individual species. These patterns are like patterns on chladni plates. Such vibration patterns indicate that each species is iterated based on a specific vibration pattern. They are quite literally spoken into existence as individual species. There is no mechanism in which a vibration pattern is transmitted via genetic modification. Consider that on a chladni plate the node-anti-node patterns are determined by the frequency, the shape and material of plate and the material vibrated( sand-etc.). However it is dominated by the frequency. Patterns are not continuously changing. You might have to range between a large frequency to get any other pattern. Plant morphology too exhibits thus vibrational function as differences in species.>> <<@MS-od7je says : Rats and cockroaches were the first to return to South Pacific islands where atomic bombs were tested and those creatures did not change morphology/species. They became polyploid in order to maintain the species. They have known this since the 1950s yet you never hear about it because it clearly goes against the paradigm. A recent redo of fish classification turns these mechanisms on their head. Dissimilar morphology appears to be closely related genetically throughout new classification based on genetics, Completely rearranging classification based on morphology. What it shows is that fish are fish! Fish adapt with similar morphology but different genetic based on environmental conditions. However they always are fish. Tortoise have different patterns on each individual species. These patterns are like patterns on chladni plates. Such vibration patterns indicate that each species is iterated based on a specific vibration pattern. They are quite literally spoken into existence as individual species. There is no mechanism in which a vibration pattern is transmitted via genetic modification. Consider that on a chladni plate the node-anti-node patterns are determined by the frequency, the shape and material of plate and the material vibrated( sand-etc.). However it is dominated by the frequency. Patterns are not continuously changing. You might have to range between a large frequency to get any other pattern. Plant morphology too exhibits thus vibrational function as differences in species.>> <<@MS-od7je says : The biological sciences have moved away from “life” is a cell because they cannot explain how a cell went from an oil-water mixture and perhaps captured an RNA molecule to a known fewest genes ( ~450) which by laboratory experiments is the minimum at which a “cell” can stay “ alive” but at ~450 genes it cannot also reproduce. The conundrum is clear. How could a soup-water bubble capture a RNA and then create 450 genes and still not replicate to pass on those genes to daughter cells but requires even more rna which had to be a random generation. This would mean that any “cell” create over 450 genes randomly. A selection of functions at the protein level and mutations at the RNA level would have to be overwhelming improbable because in order for that one chance of all those sequences it would not be correlated with any other protein-selection rna mutations. Like the multiverse the point of infinite possibilities and within limited probability would be linked to if there were an infinite number of universes made from one big bang. So now scientists are necessarily confronted with the necessity for an infinite simultaneous and connected multiverse but also a simultaneous and connected pre cell system.>> <<@Floina says : Evolution...common sense...who created or designed what was evolving>> <<@Floina says : Jesus is the Messiah Father is the Creator. Read Daniel chapter 7: 9,10. Matthew 10:32 Whoever acknowledges me before others, I also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. Praise be The Father in the name of Jesus. Almighty God; Prince of Peace.>> <<@Floina says : Thanks!>> <<@ErickSalas-g8u says : who are we to say what God makes is junk lol i always said is not junk perhaps the real code.>> <<@donteatthecats0001 says : The scientific community has no doubt whatsoever about the veracity of either evolution or evolutionary theory.>> <<@logicalatheist1065 says : Ive never met a creationist / intelligent design slob that actually knew what a scientific theory is.>> <<@logicalatheist1065 says : They're not, The theory of evolution is a very well established scientific fact.. mountains of evidence... Doesn't matter what Religious organizations like cross examine, AIG or discovery institute say.>> <<@Moist._Robot says : The fraudulent creationist industry has whole ministries set up to misrepresent evolution and the science that proves the bible wrong. They can’t even agree with each other about the science or the bible. The whole thing is a ridiculous farce.>> <<@abelincoln8885 says : Stop this Liberal nonsense. Natural Selection is not "microevolution" but simply natural breeding using existing biological processes & genes, and results in variation or adaptation within a species. Selective Breeding by Man is Unnatural Selection for desired traits.. Natural breeding by various species results in Natural Selection of traits that give an animal (not man) some advantage over others of its species. In 1850, most understood Nation Selection to simply be natural breeding compared to unnatural breeding by Man. But Darwin incorrectly used Natural Selection as the mechanism for driving Evolution of the species from simpler common ancestors over long periods of time. There was no evidence for Evolution in the 1850's and still non today. Evolutionists have now moved to Genetics to prove Evolution by ... "natural selection" .. with this false belief of "microevolution." And still this is no evidence of actual "evolution" from a simple life to a more complex with knew genes & traits and a more complex genome. Atheism, Dawinism, Communism, National Socialism, Eugenics & Liberal Humanism all originate from Europe ... starting from the French Revolution where Atheists violently rejected God, Bible Church and embraced Humanism and a Natural origin of the Universe & Life. Prior to the 1800's every ... nation .... believed in "the gods" & an eternal spirit because everything is a Function with clear purpose, rules, design (information) that Man knows only a being like him but more powerful, can make. Religions are based entirely on Man's intellect and observation and it doesn't matter if you are from a civilized developed nation or a tribe of primitives. And Atheism is a religion where Man simply rejects Theism especially the God of the Bible, and instead worships the almighty Mother Nature which apparently can make & enforce laws of Nature, and make things with clear purpose, rules & design. The Scientific Method is a Function designed by a Natural intelligence (Man) to explain natural phenomena (Functions) relying on fixed Laws of Nature (Functions) and is simly: 1. Observation (Machine Analogies) 2. Hypothesis (Universal Functions due to Information systems) 3. Test & Prediction ( Function, Intelligence, Mind & Information Categories). 4. Conclude (Space, time, Laws of Nature, Matter & Energy are Natural Functions with information) 5. Refine into a Law ( only if valid, true & natural). Evolution, Abiogenesis & Big Bang all fail to pass the scientific Method because they are Atheist beliefs. But Universal Functions easily passes the scientific Method and fully explains the origin of the Universe & Life, and proves God is singular, timeless, nonphysical, multidimensional & Unnatural .. due to the Intelligence Category defined using a known subcategory ( Man). The Mind of any Inteligence has to be Unnatural (spirit). Therefore the Mind of a Natural intelligence (Man) has to be natural (body) & unnatural (soul) with both being Functions designed by God to give Man freewill, nature, intellect, thought, memory, senses, feelings & consciousness of the natural (body) then unnatural (soul). Christians scientists need to stop being Liberals following Liberal systems & beliefs. Natural Selection was never "microevolution" but simply Natural breeding causing variation & adaptation within a species using existing genes & biological processes. Science is a Functions designed by an intelligence to explain Functions. And Functions can only be made by an Intelligence due to the information ever Funciton has to exist & to function. The Universe & Life are Natural Functions that can only be made by an Unnatural Intelligence called God. Heaven, Hell, Angels & the soul of Man ... are Unnatural Functions ...that can only be made by a Unnatural Intelligence called God. Because space, (3D), time, laws of nature, matter & energy are Natural Functions, there can only be one timeless, infinite, unnatural, nonphysical, multidimensional intelligence with freewill & nature called God. This is how you uses Laws of Nature ... to prove the unnatural.>> <<@walterdaems57 says : Because it stands to logic and reason that a celestial wizard shook the universe out of his sleeve.>> <<@Dr.LilianRamzy.pro-ID says : Great conversation. Enjoying it a lot . Dr. Casey Lusky is clear and interesting as usual.>> <<@AMERICANZOMBIETODAY says : Evolution: the commonly agreed upon lie. Macro-evolution is the doublespeak for Adaptation and Genetic Drift. If Adaptation is Evolution then why call it Adaptation? Because evolution is based on lies. Evolution is a religion and no religion knows the answer.>> <<@leroyjennings5842 says : The 2 biggest hoaxes on mankind today is climate change and evolution>> <<@Gek711 says : Nobody honest and intelligent doubts evolution any more than they doubt gravity.>> <<@beste7187 says : Two Christian apologists with no relevance or training in the science of evolution are confirming their own claims that have been disproven countless times. Luskin is still trying to claim something about evolution after suffering defeat after defeat.>> <<@martinjan2334 says : Darwin's finches ... a textbook example of how Darwinists misrepresented the reality ... Because a bird's beak got bigger, therefore single-cell-to-human evolution is true ... Because bacteria adapted to antibiotics, therefore single-cell-to-human evolution is true ... Because peppered moths changed body color, therefore single-cell-to-human evolution is true ... Because a cave fish lost eyes, therefore single-cell-to-human evolution is true ... Because a cave spider lost eyes, therefore single-cell-to-human evolution is true ... Because lots of other cave species lost eyes, therefore single-cell-to-human evolution is true ... and on and on and on ... Darwinists mistaken pre-engineered capability of species to adapt for single-cell-to-human evolution ... Darwinism = 150+ years of misrepresentation of evidence, also lots of extrapolation and some scientific fraud as well ... One day, the theory of evolution will become the biggest failure in the history of science ... that's for sure ... --->> <<@silverfire01 says : Yes some in religion like to try and trash evolution theory. Even if evolution is wrong there would still need to be verifiable evidence of a god creating in 6 days and any of the other supernatural stories like a talking serpent in the garden of eden, lots wife being turned to a pillar of salt, jesus being the son of god for example. I would be willing to accept the creation story if there was verifiable evidence.>> <<@frosted1030 says : Evolutionary biology is measurement. Not sure why your ego is getting in the way here but rest assured nothing you are doing is going to change scientific theory. Those that deny that evolutionary biology happens never seem to have PhD credentials in the science, even though every ivy league college has a PhD path in it. That's interesting. Generally you are going nowhere with your arguments, except to excite creationists into thinking that they may have more than a simple beLIEf. This is (going to use a science term here) dishonest. When you don't have a qualitative methodology for discerning truth and you profess to know or have a truth that can't be examined you show a lack of understanding, not a truth. Ask the creationist why they never seem to come up with a model, or even a qualitative definition. What is it about peer review that they fear so much? Again, this is egotism. You are afraid to be wrong, and that's the difference between an honest methodology and whatever creationists are doing.>> <<@Kramer-tt32 says : They aren't.... yall are lying about this.>> <<@dougsmith6793 says : If creationism is a fact, there's no reason whatsoever for ANY naturalistic mechanism necessary for evolution to exist -- those naturalistic mechanisms for change over time are simply irrelevant and unnecessary. Yet God made sure that all those naturalistic mechanisms not only exist, but can be observed and measured. The success and coherence of the naturalistic narrative -- down to the highest degree of scientific precision -- cannot just be an accident or coincidence, but must be God's intention. So, either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself, without God, is the creator.>> <<@mattslater2603 says : Uhhh they arent.>> <<@sophiafanny says : Q re Darwin's finches: When a drought happens or ends, does a given finch's beak change, or does the change happen in that finch's offspring, or does the population shift because finches with the now-wrong beak size die and those with the now-right beak size thrive?>>