Debate with Shane Wilson and ReiperX

Watch Forrest Valkai on his Video from 17:00 to 18:00 · Debate with Shane Wilson and ReiperX

Repeating relevant comment for context, but watch ReiperX and Shane Wilson glide away from the topic:

17:15 Have you heard any Creationist dispute the existence of natural selection? (Except me, I think we deal with providential selection)

And unsuited traits disappearing don't mean suited traits appearing. They have to exist in the first place for natural selection not to kill a whole population off instead of improving it.

17:24 "is exactly what Darwin wrote about"

You mean in the chapters where he described his observations, instead of philosophising about common origin of all living species?

And philosophising badly at that ...

17:40 Yes, precisely. Poorly suited characters disappearing is a loss of information.

Can actually happen in living beings that have information in the first place and most importantly alternative and suited information in the first place.

A yeast cell can't develop an eye by just losing information, OK ... that's the whole point.

17:48 Thank you!
Loss of information doesn't tell us anything about where that information came from in the first place. (Attributed : Forrest Valkai said so 23.XI.2021)

And one other thing that doesn't tell us anything about it is : observing mutations. At work. Even at work in speciation events.

17:54 Yeah, Forrest, did you think about your answer before you spoke it?

Shane Wilson

you get new traits via mutations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson you get different traits, and less traits - if you pretend you get "new traits" you are confusing trait in the sense we talk of with trait as applies to human characters : with us, losing one moral trait always means gaining a different one, but when it comes to genes and functions, no, losing such a trait doesn't mean gaining a different one.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ummm, losing one trait doesn't mean you gain another, but this doesn't mean we can't gain other traits. Traits do evolve.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX Would you mind telling me from what?

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You see, there is this thing we have called DNA. In this DNA, there are copy errors that we call mutations. Some of these mutations are new to the genome and express themselves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX Take a poem, even a haiku.

Make every a a b, every b a c and so on.

How much legible information do you think you will get?

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And this isn't remotely the same. There is a single point mutation which allows for lactose tolerance. Not only that, but there is plenty of noncoding segments of our DNA. This allows for changes to happen without affecting our fitness and for the most part it doesn't matter, until it becomes coding.

Hell, this is why we have ERVs, which are viruses embedded into our DNA. It doesn't affect us really in most insertion points. But ERVs are something that we can use to show that evolution happens.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "And this isn't remotely the same."

I tried the initial amino acid sequence for human keratin 16. I deducted one possible code for it. I made a deletion of 4 base pairs. This obviously disrupted all the following triplets. I then deduced the nine (sorry eight) amino acids that would result as:

methionine histidine valine leucine leucine asparagine leucine leucine

Keratin is for nails and hair, I don't think the resulting new sequence would fit anywhere in a human body.

"There is a single point mutation which allows for lactose tolerance."

Which is loss of information. All babies are lactose tolerant, the mutation shuts off the function of shutting this off at puberty.

"Not only that, but there is plenty of noncoding segments of our DNA. This allows for changes to happen without affecting our fitness and for the most part it doesn't matter, until it becomes coding."

Would you mind giving an example of documented non-coding DNA that became coding with resulting documented gain of function?

"Hell, this is why we have ERVs, which are viruses embedded into our DNA. It doesn't affect us really in most insertion points. But ERVs are something that we can use to show that evolution happens."

Or the ERV parts had a real function and viruses are a result of such breaking off.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't know of any off the top of my hand, guess what, not a geneticist. But this is what you call a mutation. Duplication mutations can copy an entire gene, and then that can be altered down the line, again, not an issue. I'm sorry you have done all of two seconds of actual research on genetics.

And lactose tolerance isn't a "loss of information" its a change in it.

And on the ERVs, you really don't grasp why they are important do you?

ERVs are viruses embedded in our DNA, we all have them. But in order to be passed down to the next generation. The fact that not only do we share the same ERV markers, but they are in the same place across multiple species shows common decent. But you don't seem to be able to grasp that very basic concept, which is why I know you've done jack all research.

Yet you, a layman with no education in the field, someone who is arguing a slightly above Ken Ham level, thinks he's even remotely challenging one of the most robust scientific theories there are. That's funny.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "I don't know of any off the top of my hand, guess what, not a geneticist."

Neither am I, except an amateur. I was taught the laws of Mendel as a child, and am for instance not impressed when Jacques Monod claimed a gene could gain information from combining mutations from ma and pa.

"But this is what you call a mutation. Duplication mutations can copy an entire gene, and then that can be altered down the line, again, not an issue."

The issue is, when and how will that altered down the line duplicate contribute to anything new?

"I'm sorry you have done all of two seconds of actual research on genetics."

I think it is a bit more than just two seconds, actually.

"And lactose tolerance isn't a "loss of information" its a change in it."

False. The original information stated "Children shall from week so and so of pregnancy produce lactase, and this shall end at puberty" while the mutation has deleted the part stating "and this shall end at puberty" which phenotypically means a net gain after puberty. The mutation of one base pair is definitely not what made it possible to produce lactase in the first place, all mammal newborns produce lactase and all, except a certain subset of men, lose the capacity at puberty.

"And on the ERVs, you really don't grasp why they are important do you?"

You really didn't grasp my answer dealt with it, did you?

"ERVs are viruses embedded in our DNA, we all have them. But in order to be passed down to the next generation. The fact that not only do we share the same ERV markers, but they are in the same place across multiple species shows common decent."

Common descent, if they really originated as virus infections. But common descent OR common designer if the virus infections came from them. See the difference this time?

"But you don't seem to be able to grasp that very basic concept, which is why I know you've done jack all research."

The concept is not basic. It is also not "one concept" but two opposed ones. Concept A (as defined by evolutionists who found the phenomenon) : "virus infections became embedded and are now ERVs" vs concept B (as defined by creationists who took up the challenge) : "ERV's are misnomers and this original part of our genome (given by a common designer) has sometimes led to virus infections by splitting off."

"Yet you, a layman with no education in the field, someone who is arguing a slightly above Ken Ham level, thinks he's even remotely challenging one of the most robust scientific theories there are. That's funny."

If the theory is so robust, how about asking a real scientist (you aren't one, at least not in evolutionary biology, as your blunder about lactase persistence shows and you admitted yourself) to do the arguing with me, with arguments, I'll publish them as I already publish yours, instead of hacks like you doing it with ad hominems?

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't care what you are impressed with or not. That doesn't change the fact that you, someone ignorant of the subject, that doesn't even know what an ERV is, thinks he knows more about the theory of evolution than the experts. And you can't even bring up a good argument against it.

And no, we know what an ERV is. Sorry, you just saying "but designer could put them in the same exact spot" is just stupid. Its the same stupid argument with the GULO gene you guys do. I'm sorry, your argument has zero actual credibility in the real world.

I'm not the moron who is trying to tell all of the scientists they are wrong, that's you. So why don't you get your stuff published.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "I don't care ... [a]nd you can't even bring up a good argument against it."

I showed twice over that I know what the ERV argument is.

I also do not think I know more about the theory of evolution than experts on both sides : I think the creationist side knows more because it is right, and as an amateur, I share some small part of that superiority.

"And no, we know what an ERV is."

From what observations, exactly? ERV genome parts in mammals look like viral genomes? Fine, but both explanations take that into account. What exact observation excludes the creationist approach?

"Sorry, you just saying "but designer could put them in the same exact spot" is just stupid."

Now, "sorry ... is just stupid" is not exactly an articulate argument on why the creationist approach on ERVs would be wrong.

"Its the same stupid argument with the GULO gene you guys do."

I don't know what the GULO gene is, and if there is one or you just pulled that out of a certain place - and as long as you don't present an actual argument, I don't feel like overworking myself by looking it up immediately.

"I'm sorry, your argument has zero actual credibility in the real world."

I suppose that you use "the real world" as "among my set of people" [yours, that is] and I also suppose "in your fantasy world" would roughly translate as "among your set of people" (meaning mine, this time).

"I'm not the moron"

Nice objective approach to an argument, isn't it?

"who is trying to tell all of the scientists they are wrong, that's you."

No, I am not. First, I am not even telling all the evolution believing scientists they are wrong on other things than evolution belief, and second, I am most definitely not telling creation scientists they are wrong about mutations meaning loss of information. You are nearly, except you prefer to tell me over telling them, because I don't have a science degree. But my amateur view of genetics is sufficient to know that lactase persistance is a loss of the information that turns off lactase production, not a gain of information on how to produce it in small childhood. You seem to have missed that "little detail" which is not so small.

"So why don't you get your stuff published."

• 1) I do, I re-publish our (already public) debate on my blog Assorted retorts;
• 2) I give general permission to republish my blog posts, when it comes to debates, I advise to take the other's intellectual rights into account too;
• 3) and if you meant in papers like Nature Genetics, I already tried to get a smallish thing of twenty lines published, and I didn't get any response at all - not a publication, not a "yeah, guess you're right" but also (I think this is significant) not any "sorry, you are wrong because you missed this detail" and then an explanation of what I missed.

I begin to suspect you are a Commie and a shrink and a kind of guy the people like Forrest Valkai love to get involved over pretending to give me some "therapy" so they don't have to take an actual debate.

[I therefore blocked him, and if anyone wants to republish this commercially, and take his rights into account, you'll have to contact him. Oh, wait, I undid that, because I posed him a question he should be able to answer.]

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You either don't know what an ERV is or you don't know the argument, and I still think its the latter. You've continually shown you're clueless.

And you can pretend creationists are correct, but they have nothing supporting their side, as opposed to the theory of evolution which is supported by thousands of experiments and pretty much all of the data. You don't even have a valid hypothesis.

ERVs are an actual prediction in evolution, not so in creationism. With your side its all post hoc rationalization.

The GULO gene is the gene responsible for Vitamin C synthesis. We have it, but it is a pseudogene. It doesn't function. Not only in humans, but all haplorhines. Not only is the gene non functional, but its non functional for the same reason as opposed to other animals with a broken GULO gene. Do you know why this is? Common decent.

And yes, your "group" is not living in reality, they have to literally throw in magic to make their crap work. Sorry, magic isn't an actual answer until you can show it is possible.

Creation scientists is an oxymoron

So you can't get your crap published in a real peer review journal. Perhaps you should put actual effort into it.

No, not a commie. Hell, 90% of the idiots who use that term to call someone one, don't even know what that is or means. But no, the reason I reply to you is because you say stupid stuff and should be corrected. Because letting bad information stand unopposed is how we get anti-vaxxers and flat earthers, which are basically on the same level of "science" as you guys.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "You either don't know what an ERV is or you don't know the argument, and I still think its the latter."

I know both. Evolutionists claim that one of the ERV phenomona common to human and some ape genomes came from a virus infection incrusting itself in a particular place in the genome of a common ancestor. Creationists disagree on the origin story for at least this ERV. Hence we disagree on what you think ERVs ultimately are. We agree they are spots in the genomes, we agree they look like virus genomes. We believe they have some function in the genome, at that spot, and was put there by a common designer, and that the reason for similar look with viral genomes is, viruses started off as ERVs. Other option : the ERV codes for a virus vital to both human and ape viromes.

"You've continually shown you're clueless."

Has no bearing whatsoever on what ERVs ultimately are.

"And you can pretend creationists are correct, but they have nothing supporting their side, as opposed to the theory of evolution which is supported by thousands of experiments and pretty much all of the data."

All and nothing are very non-specific. You are not supported by the question where information came from. That is a specific question.

[He also ceased adressing it, did you note?]

"You don't even have a valid hypothesis. ERVs are an actual prediction in evolution, not so in creationism."

I'm not sure either side made its predictions before seeing the observational data.

"With your side its all post hoc rationalization."

Oh ... so? Since when are reasons only valid if given before seeing the outcome?

"The GULO gene is the gene responsible for Vitamin C synthesis. We have it, but it is a pseudogene. It doesn't function."

Ah, that one. I just didn't know the term GULO.

"Not only in humans, but all haplorhines. Not only is the gene non functional, but its non functional for the same reason as opposed to other animals with a broken GULO gene."

My position : Adam and Eve had it unbroken, as punishment for original sin (or possibly during deterioration of lifespans), God took this asset away. And as extra punishment, the mutation matches ... I suppose haplorhines means "half nosed apes/monkeys"?*

"Do you know why this is? Common decent."

You mean common decency by God to give us some kind of company? If you mean commonly descending from common ancestry, the spelling is with sc, not c. Adjective decent, noun decency is from Latin verb "decere" and verb to descend, noun descent is from Latin verb "de-scendere" which is composite from simple "scandere" ... I know common descent is one option, to explain this, but it's the wrong one.

"And yes, your "group" is not living in reality, they have to literally throw in magic to make their crap work. Sorry, magic isn't an actual answer until you can show it is possible."

Did your fingers type letters as prompted by inertia and gravitation, or did your mind chose which letters? In the latter case, you have mind dominating matter, at some point directly, which is the most basic definition of what you term "magic".

"Creation scientists is an oxymoron So you can't get your crap published in a real peer review journal. Perhaps you should put actual effort into it. No, not a commie. Hell, 90% of the idiots who use that term to call someone one, don't even know what that is or means. But no, the reason I reply to you is because you say stupid stuff and should be corrected. Because letting bad information stand unopposed is how we get anti-vaxxers and flat earthers, which are basically on the same level of "science" as you guys."

Well, if not Commie in Economic theory, you are very close to historic Commies in your outlook on religion and science. You can be Manchester Liberal in Economic theory (it seems Red China is, or close to) but your general world view would have found total approval on several party meetings in Moscow. With that outlook, you would be basically still a Commie, even if you politically supported (in name only) a Restoration of the Czars.

* (footnote)

It actually means "simian primates" (both all apes and all monkeys), and CMI has a good treatment of the question here:

Potentially decisive evidence against pseudogene ‘shared mistakes’
by John Woodmorappe | his article is from
Journal of Creation 18(3):63–69, December 2004
https://creation.com/potentially-decisive-evidence-against-pseudogene-shared-mistakes

Citing :

Figure 3. Evolutionary nested hierarchy, expressed as a cladogram, with the widely accepted human–chimp clade as the crown group. Guinea pig and human GULO pseudogenes show an astonishing 36% identical nucleotide substitutions (relative to the intact rat GULO gene), despite the fact that the two pseudogenes could not possibly have arisen from a common ancestral pseudogene. The exact sequences of monkey and ape GULO pseudogenes are not yet available, so are shown as question marks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX Btw, I think you gave up, wisely enough, to argue that lactase persistence is gain of information.

So, another piece of "magic" as you put it is, information has somehow come into being, and we don't see that process now. We see losses, we also see minor modifications (like in melanine mutations leading to white skin and similar phenomena). Nothing like assembling the first melanine gene, the first gulo gene, the first gene for lactase production.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so you've shifted the goal post.

Thank you Hans, thank you for showing you are dishonest.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "you get different traits, and less traits - if you pretend you get "new traits" you are confusing trait in the sense we talk of with trait as applies to human characters : with us, losing one moral trait always means gaining a different one, but when it comes to genes and functions, no, losing such a trait doesn't mean gaining a different one."

Its weird, because my mutation gave me a "new trait." I could hear above the normal hearing range for humans. It used to cause all kinds of fun stuff with hearing tests when I took them. Whether or not I still can, or have lost this ability due to more natural hearing loss, I don't know. But its a really cool mutation, although it is a bit annoying at times.

Then you have the coolest mutation in humans, tetrachromancy.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so when it comes to ERVs, everything is "god did it" and you make no predictions. This is why ID isn't an actual theory or even hypothesis. It has zero explanatory power because "god did it" is the answer to it all.

Its why your entire position is a joke.

And no, consciousness, the mind, that's not magic in any sense of the word no matter how much dishonest people like yourself want it to be.

And no, I'm not a commie, not even in that sense. Sorry, you don't know what a Communist is to begin with. Even from a religion perspective, I wouldn't align with them. But now you're just trying to deflect because you know you can't hold an actual honest discussion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX No, you shifted the goal post : from proving a documented case of gain of function to proving (except it doesn't) just common descent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Would you point to research showing your condition and tetrachromancy are mutated rather than the original form for the human genome?

Either way, it is just a variation on something already there, namely hearing sounds and seeing colours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "Sorry, you don't know what a Communist is to begin with. .... But now you're just trying to deflect because you know you can't hold an actual honest discussion."

I grew up during the cold war, and was born some months after the end of the Prague Spring.

I know they liked to politicise psychiatry and therefore also psychiatric terminology, like "not living in the real world" among other issues precisely against Christianity or what they would have considered "over-the-top" Christianity. There were Baptists in Russia who got to mental hospitals for being precisely Baptists and there were others who lost custody of children for the exact same reason.

If you don't like being taken for a Commie, start respecting the mental sanity of your opponents in discussions and debates, for a start!

"Even from a religion perspective, I wouldn't align with them."

I definitely know they are dialectic materialists, and that is at least not far from your position.

"so when it comes to ERVs, everything is "god did it" and you make no predictions. This is why ID isn't an actual theory or even hypothesis. It has zero explanatory power because "god did it" is the answer to it all."

Not exactly no. Putting original information into a genome is something God does, but losing information by mutations is more like something God allows to happen.

I could make two predictions off hand from the theory as I stated it : 1) one will find functions to the human and ape places in genomes where Evolutionists speak of ERV, 2) some occasions, a virus infection will be shown to have started in an ERV, human or non-human.

But God put information in place is a valid answer, because "something else did" never answers what something else it is that does so. Including here.

"And no, consciousness, the mind, that's not magic in any sense of the word no matter how much dishonest people like yourself want it to be."

Both its existence and its power over matter in the human body are impossible to account for on materialistic terms.

Sure, when I exercise power over a keyboard with my fingers, you can state that touching such and such a key with approrpriate strength of touch will produce a letter, space or other visible character everything in that line happens because of purely materialistic connexions between vectors in fingers and vectors in keys, electricity in keyboard and electricity behind the screen. But when my mind exercises power over my fingers like that, it is different. It is mind exercising direct control over matter, which is precisely what you meant by magic. And pretending that "no it isn't, mind itself is matter" is as unsubstantiated as mutations producing new genes.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You grew up during the cold war, that explains a lot on why you don't know what Communism is.

If you don't want someone calling out your crap beliefs, have a better epistemology. You are entitled to whatever beliefs you are, but don't whine when you get called out it when your answer to question is "magic did it." That's delusional thinking. Get over yourself, you're not that special.

And those aren't real predictions Hans. This is post hoc rationalization, and that's it. And this a problem. And when your answer is literally "magic did it," you've completely removed yourself from science and the real world. You've thrown all rationality out the window. Why is the Earth where its at? Magic. Why is the sky blue? Magic. Why do cats purr? Magic. Why does it rain? Magic.

And the evidence points to the mind being a by product of the brain, IE, not magic. The mind isn't immaterial, it is a brain state.

+ @Hans-Georg Lundahl I told you that if that wasn't one, I don't have one off hand. And I pointed towards common decent which was already being discussed, you know, the whole evolution thing.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the reason we know it is a mutation is because its not found in any of the other great apes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Is it? Well, that means we don't know it, since we don't know common ancestry with great apes in the first place.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "You grew up during the cold war, that explains a lot on why you don't know what Communism is."

Right. (that was irony, if you didn't get it)

"If you don't want someone calling out your crap beliefs,"

You were not "calling out" my beliefs, you were attacking my person as per my sanity, that is something different, and it's arguably from Commies of the East Block that your confusion on that issue comes.

"have a better epistemology."

You never called out my epistemology, you called out my ontology.

"You are entitled to whatever beliefs you are, but don't whine when you get called out it when your answer to question is "magic did it.""

Complaining about an insult and an attack is not whining, and attacking someone's sanity is not "calling someone out".

"... when your answer to question is "magic did it." That's delusional thinking. Get over yourself, you're not that special."

Did it again. You used the word "delusional". P L U S you used the collectivist injunction of Communism, asking someone disagreeing with YOUR collective to get over himself, because he is not that special. My person has nothing or very little to do with it.

"And those aren't real predictions Hans. This is post hoc rationalization, and that's it."

Not in the least. I haven't seen the results on those two yet.

"And this a problem. And when your answer is literally "magic did it," you've completely removed yourself from science and the real world."

You have confused "the real world" with materialism and "science" with materialism and on top of that "science" and the "real world" with each other.

"You've thrown all rationality out the window. Why is the Earth where its at? Magic. Why is the sky blue? Magic. Why do cats purr? Magic. Why does it rain? Magic."

Nice deviation attempt from what I was actually saying.

"And the evidence points to the mind being a by product of the brain, IE, not magic. The mind isn't immaterial, it is a brain state."

On the contrary. It is accompanied by brain states, in man, in this life, but there is no reason why brain states could produce mind. But again, you have bowed down to the magisterium of Moscow from 1920 to 1990 or so.

+ @ReiperX "I told you that if that wasn't one, I don't have one off hand."

Neither has Forrest Valkai, apparently.

"And I pointed towards common decent"

An argument for your being Russian - you can't spell "descent".

"which was already being discussed, you know, the whole evolution thing."

Arguments for common descent only work if there is a mechanism for new information. As shown, there isn't.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl your answer is "god did it" that is no different than magic did it. I know you don't like it, but that's the facts Hans. That's why your crap isn't even remotely science. Its magical thinking. Your methodology of thinking is delusional here. I'm stating facts.

Why can't the mind come from a brain state? Because that's what the evidence suggests. The fact that we can change someone's personality, we can affect who they are by messing with the brain suggests this. Split brain personalities show this too.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sorry for the additional response. You want gain of information mutation?
Salmonella typhimurium gained a mutation which allowed it to eat d-arabinose, which Salmonella can't generally detect as food.

And even Michael Behe, yes, the pseudoscientist pushing for ID agrees that it was not only gain of function, but a gain of information.

So not even the poster boy for the ID movement denies this.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl all of the evidence points to common ancestry Hans, not away from it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson The evidence for common ancestry is often enough evidence for a common designer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "Sorry for the additional response."

No problem, we came into a groove, I'm reuniting the response.

"your answer is "god did it" that is no different than magic did it."

There is a problem with your epistemology - you presume without evidence that "magic did it" is an always invalid response.

"I know you don't like it,"

The above comment was not objectionable on a personal level, the following is after the middle.

"but that's the facts Hans. That's why your crap isn't even remotely science. Its magical thinking. Your methodology of thinking is delusional here. I'm stating facts."

First, your beginning and your end pretend you "state facts" - what kind of facts? Certainly not facts directly observed. It's with unobserved causes only that we have alternatives like "magic did it" and "mechanic blind causality did it."

Hence, I'll answer my question for you: the kind of "facts" you state are credal facts within your worldview.

Not remotely science isn't all that bad, just thank you for showing that you are once again confusing (Commie style!) reality with science and materialism with both. And again, you are stating a credal fact within your worldview.

It's magical thinking starts to get ... ambiguous. Some use the word to mean things like spirits being real substances and that independently of matter (though in man not independently of a connexion to matter), some use it to mean things like "I don't get what he did, therefore he's a sorcerer" and there is a very wide range of other statements between the two.

Now, you did it again, though thanks for limiting with "your methodology" and "here" ... calling out "delusion" or any other type of mental symptom is not debating, it's an ad hominem. And "magic thinking" doesn't objectively warrant delusional.

"Why can't the mind come from a brain state?"

Like colour can't come from a geometric shape. And before you mention geometric shapes that give colour impressions, they only do so when there is light on or through them, and colour is inherently in the light, only that colour (for instance blue) is a modification of the light due to geometrical shapes (for instance in a butterfly wing).

"Because that's what the evidence suggests. The fact that we can change someone's personality, we can affect who they are by messing with the brain suggests this. Split brain personalities show this too."

I already mentioned, in man the spirit is not independent of a connexion to matter - it's created as soul of a body that's material as well as biological, not ceasing therefore to be a spirit. And I think "colour blue from geometric shapes in butterfly wings" is a fair parallel to modified mind due to modified brain. The light is light independently of the shapes in a butterfly wing, even if it is filtered as blue by them, and the modifications modify a mind that cannot be explained by either brain nor modification.

"You want gain of information mutation?"

I actually want new function, new types of information, not just a new range of the information there is.

"Salmonella typhimurium gained a mutation which allowed it to eat d-arabinose, which Salmonella can't generally detect as food."

I looked it up. Arabinose is a complex sugar and eating simple sugars is already part of the bacterial make-up. Hence, this is an extension of range. And I suspect this might be by deleting actual information, like specifications on what the edible sugar needs to look like.

"And even Michael Behe, yes, the pseudoscientist pushing for ID agrees that it was not only gain of function, but a gain of information."

Would you like to give me a link to his statement?

"So not even the poster boy for the ID movement denies this."

I don't do "the poster boy of my movement states X, therefore I must state X" (papal definitions excepted).

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"There is a problem with your epistemology - you presume without evidence that "magic did it" is an always invalid response."
Thank you for showing that your entire position, your entire epistemology , is irrational. You literally believe in magic.

And yeah, I reject magic did it until have good evidence that magic is even possible.

You might as well be saying invisible pixies did it. But, at least you show why nobody should take you seriously there magic man.

"Not remotely science isn't all that bad, just thank you for showing that you are once again confusing (Commie style!) reality with science and materialism with both. And again, you are stating a credal fact within your worldview."

Can't actually form a coherent argument, so you have to pretend I'm a commie, your slipping Hans. You went from someone who actually tried to "oh you're a commie." Really, grow up dude.

And science has again and again been shown to be the best method to learn about the world around us. It is what got us to the moon, its what created vaccines, its the reason we can communicate across the globe nearly instantly. It produces real results. What do you have that magic has done that you can demonstrate? If you can show magic is even possible, then perhaps I'll take claims of magic did it seriously.

"I already mentioned, in man the spirit is not independent of a connexion to matter - it's created as soul of a body that's material as well as biological, not ceasing therefore to be a spirit. And I think "colour blue from geometric shapes in butterfly wings" is a fair parallel to modified mind due to modified brain. The light is light independently of the shapes in a butterfly wing, even if it is filtered as blue by them, and the modifications modify a mind that cannot be explained by either brain nor modification."

No, you made a bold assed assertion contrary to all of the evidence. BTW, don't pretend to critique my spelling if you are going to put up typos. It makes you look bad.

"I looked it up. Arabinose is a complex sugar and eating simple sugars is already part of the bacterial make-up. Hence, this is an extension of range. And I suspect this might be by deleting actual information, like specifications on what the edible sugar needs to look like."

How dishonest can you get Hans. I'm done with you. I give you exactly what you asked for, and now you move the goal posts. You're entirely too dishonest to have a conversation with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "Thank you for showing that your entire position, your entire epistemology , is irrational. You literally believe in magic."

You have not shown that what you call magic is irrational.

"And yeah, I reject magic did it until have good evidence that magic is even possible."

Most basic definition of it is: mind directly controls matter. Happens when your mind choses the letters you use on the keyboard.

"You might as well be saying invisible pixies did it."

On some items, perhaps they did.

"But, at least you show why nobody should take you seriously there magic man."

Meaning "nobody" in your circles.

// "Not remotely science isn't all that bad, just thank you for showing that you are once again confusing (Commie style!) reality with science and materialism with both. And again, you are stating a credal fact within your worldview." //

"Can't actually form a coherent argument,"

Let me break the coherence down for you.

The supposed insult "not remotely science" isn't all that bad as a comment.

It shows that you are confusing reality with science and materialism with both. And this is very typical for the Commie worldview.

"so you have to pretend I'm a commie,"

You are possibly an Anti-Communist in "politics" (except education) and in economic theory. Confusing science, reality and materialism is the exact thing that Commies put to perfection when it comes to worldview issues. I didn't say "you are a Commie" but I said what you were doing is Commie style.

"your slipping Hans."

Not the least.

"You went from someone who actually tried to "oh you're a commie." Really, grow up dude."

Using politicised psychiatry to combat actual Christianity is in fact a Commie invention. It is typical for the KGB boss who acceeded or ceased to head KGB (I forget which) in 1974. And since you used psychiatric language, very inapprorpiately for what was supposed to be a debate, you showed your family resemblance with Communism. I never said it was more than hat.

"And science has again and again been shown to be the best method to learn about the world around us."

You are using science in a very broad sense of "the world around us" in a very narrow one.

"It is what got us to the moon,"

As if that did us any good ...

"its what created vaccines,"

And abused fetal tissue for some of them, taken from aborted babies.

And a pro-vaxxer just admitted the Pfizer deaths in France are 380 sth and the Astra-Zeneca deaths are 44.

"its the reason we can communicate across the globe nearly instantly."

Two edged. I get to deal with people like you ...

"It produces real results. What do you have that magic has done that you can demonstrate? If you can show magic is even possible, then perhaps I'll take claims of magic did it seriously."

Now you are shifting the question from "magic" as in magical thinking to "magic" as in "magic as a technique" ... two different issues.

"No, you made a bold assed assertion contrary to all of the evidence."

You presented no evidence contrary to the "bold assertion".

"BTW, don't pretend to critique my spelling if you are going to put up typos. It makes you look bad."

What "typo" are you talking about? Btw, your bad spelling of descent was a repeat offense.

"How dishonest can you get Hans. I'm done with you. I give you exactly what you asked for, and now you move the goal posts. You're entirely too dishonest to have a conversation with."

Is that a promise?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Would you like to tell ReiperX, I blocked him?

Shane Wilson

@ReiperX apparently you hurt Hans's feelings by evicerating him in the comments and he has run home to cry, and blocked you.

So no idea if you'll see his reply or not. But he's also an antivaxxer too. So you aren't going to be missing out on any remotely intellectual conversations.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ID has no predictive power. It isn't science. Its why it is laughed at by real scientists.

But since you already apparently outed yourself as someone who literally believes in magic, and is an anti-vaxxer, you've shown your cards on why you, just like Ken Ham, are a joke.

ReiperX

@Shane Wilson I have to say, I am surprised he's an antivaxer. He started off sounding like he might know what he's talking about, but man did he go straight into looney-ville fast.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson And being compared to Ken Ham is such a horror ... ;) or not.

Predictive power doesn't equal science, and "real scientists" who laugh are not doing either real science or real debate.

Besides, ID may be philosophy rather than strictly science, it is either way a very good such, and the alternative, "common descent from beings with no organs or cognitive capacities" doesn't explain better, but much worse, and would predict things that haven't been found, such as arising of new functions observable in real time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson I'm sorry the blocking did not stop ReiperX from continuing a conversation with you. AND to do so visibly to me.

ReiperX didn't remotely eviscerate me, it's sc, not c, and I didn't run home to cry.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, ID isn't philosophy. But if you want to call it a philosophy, cool I guess. But it isn't even a sound philosophy because the arguments don't follow.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson You have failed to show a gap between my arguments and my conclusion so far.

Watch Forrest Valkai on his Video from 17:00 to 18:00

Watch Forrest Valkai on his Video from 17:00 to 18:00 · Debate with Shane Wilson and ReiperX

Scientist Reacts to "Adaptation ≠ Evolution" | Reacteria
23rd Nov. 2021 | Forrest Valkai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wOLIZAyeAk

My only claim to intellectual originality in my following comments is, I'm discovering how much schooling Forrest Valkai needs. The rest being creationist commonplaces (both YEC and ID use the arguments passim).

3:26 It so happens, among Creationists these days (I'm no exception), no "species" are not considered as "kinds".

There are 17 hedgehog species, in 5 genera, there is 1 hedgehog kind, which may include gymnures as well (bringing it to 10 genera and 26 species).

In this case and it's perhaps not untypical for mammals, the level closests to "kind" would be either subfamily or family.

I think I can predict your point : developing a difference of family level would take too long time. Exactly : it hasn't been observed. That it hasn't been observed doesn't per se disprove it, but it proves you have some lack in your argument for it. It's a refutation for the most basic proof there is, namely observation, as applied to Evolution.

3:34 Baraminology isn't about Ray Comfort. Try to look it up with Creation Scientists, Ray being a preacher. I looked him up, he's a school quitter at 17 (nothing bad with that), a bank clerk (he might want to look up Exodus 22:24) and then a pastor ...

If I made a commented version of Darwin's book, I would not cut out biogeography, there are Creationist answers on that one.

4:02 We haven't seen cats and dogs come from Miacis Cognitus (which is AronRa's identification of their common supposed ancestor).

And we haven't seen the evolution of a new cell type. You know, nerve cell, bone cell, liver cell, etc - they are different and differentiate according to a "preplanned" program during ontogenesis. Obviously the one-celled primal eucaryote would have had only one cell type (one-celled eucaryotes have one cell type today, like yeasts, and sorry for saying "one-celled" instead of "single-celled" by the way, both Swedish and German terms would translate literally as "one-celled"). And I don't think we have in real time observed any viable mammal born with tetraploidy as compared to its parents either.

You know, tetraploidy, it's not a gradual thing, building up little by little, it's a one-time thing, and it happens in plants and some amphibians. While some have claimed Red Viscacha Rat descends from a tetraploid, we haven't seen this happen. We do see tetraploid beings born before time, dead, or born, rarely, to survive a month or two, unless the tetraploidy is chimeral.

4:11 "while faith is extremely important for him and his beliefs" (is John on screen or are you talking of Ray?) "in all other circumstances it is bad"

For my part, I'd say blind faith is at least non-ideal in Christianity as well. It beats apostasy, while seeing no solution, but is not an excuse for not seeking one, when faced with a difficulty intellectually.

Excepting exceptions, like the mysteries of faith, which cannot be proven rationally from non-Biblical arguments (God's a Trinity, God became man, the Eucharist, basically). But even they can stand up against pretended disproofs.

4:33 Yes Jane! Do do this!

You just may have heard that the latest species of Galapagos finches is a hybrid. Meaning its first exemplar's parents were from different species. Meaning the different species were classified as such bc one hadn't seen them give fertile offspring yet. Two Galapagos species were one kind.

And while I am an amateur, I think even my level might slightly beat Mr. Comfort's and there are guys whose level beats mine (as in, they are scientists, and I don't mean from diploma mills, and as in relevant area - like Georgia Purdom and another lady on AiG).

6:40 Come on, changing terminology is not changing your claim.

You may claim that marine invertebrates evolving to eventually land vertebrates isn't upwards, but to normally minded people, it kind of is. At least you would have to admit the marine invertebrate at any given moment as live such is typically (let's except a few high mountain lakes) somewhat closer to the centre of the Earth than the land vertebrate.

9:38 Some mutations will change nothing in phenotypic expression, there are cases when first two are defined and it gives exactly one amino acid for proteins, in all four possible cases for the third letter.

But we also have cases which would lead to gibberish : like coding for a protein's amino-acid that definitely has no function in the overall protein.

Plus what happens if 1, 4, 7 or whatever letters are deleted? The remainder of the gene would have the triplets start at wrong places, I guess?

On the last item, I don't know. In the immediate offspring, it would obviously be compensated by the non-deleted version on the other chromosome, speaking of eucaryotes now.

Below comment thread:

Misposted under 3:26 / 3:34 and replaced here.

Shane Wilson

You really don't seem to be able to grasp cladistics Hans.

And the observation is there. You see, you, like many creationists, don't understand the actual scientific method. Or how testing goes.

Additionally, I find it funny that you continued to post the old "no new information" line when Forrest actually explained how new information can come up, when he listed some of the types of mutations. Duplication and insertions both add.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Duplication and insertion don't add, they misplace.

Duplication plus mis-sense mutations could only add if one gene that's functional could come through errors in another gene that's functional in a very different way.

He complained about John and Jane confusing UCAT with English alphabet and three base units with words, but it seems you are doing so.

The word "wore" can replace a letter and get equally meaningful (though in a different context) "woke".

Its quite different to suppose you get a new protein with a new function just by replacing one seryl with one propyl, given the old function is retained in the other place where the seryl remains seryl.

This comment of yours is actually misplaced. The only thing that's in place is "cladistics" and I did make another comment on the topic of mutations.

+ @Shane Wilson My comment on mutations and new information is actually under time signature 9:38.

13:42 If you weren't claiming men evolved from some kind of lampreys (with appropriate number of inbetween stages over some half billion years or so), that would certainly have been a very appropriate end of the story.

Some mutations are advantageous.

In the case of pesticide resistance, it would seem that advantage is linked to some lack of previously extant function. A very advantageous one, but not a new function not previously extant.

14:14 The point is precisely : enzymes were mixed up.

14:22 The pesticide resistent mosquitos are in fact diseased. That's why John calls them diseased.

It's a bit how the swine flu strain got extinct or nearly, before being replaced by another swine flu strain : human immune system very effectively culls away non-mutated viruses, and that means the non-diseased viruses. Man has (especially Europeans) lived through a Middle Ages with lots of small pox epidemics making us overall strengthened in immune system, since those with too weak ones died off. Small-pox came in late antiquity and stayed all over the Middle Ages (while getting milder) and for part of the Modern ages too.

14:34 The point is, the "gain of function" for pesticide infested areas are a loss of function for all others. It's bad faith to compare that to whales on land, yes, they would die, but we didn't see them evolve from land animals. And land and water doesn't equate to "pesticide" and "non-pesticide" environments, since land and water are in and of themselves major areas of habitats.

14:59 No, what the mutation did made them BOTH more resistant to pesticide AND less fitted in many other ways. They didn't just become unfit for a specific non-pesticide area, but for all areas where mosquitos without pesticide resistance could survive and compete with them.

Remember, whales supposedly first having and then losing the capacity to live on land doesn't show the overall trend that evolution from single-celled (!) eucaryotes must show : new information, new functions.

16:08 The point is, the phenotypic benefit has an explanation which doesn't give explanations for yeast cells gaining retina cells (two types of them, by the way) and these needing for instance ten genes (the example taken from blind Chiclids, where two genes are damaged out of the ten, making the retina useless) that the first single-celled eucaryotes obviously didn't have.

16:22 Taking your analogy with money and hamburger - the examples observed would be very much like observing people buy hamburgers without explaining where they got the money from (the analogy is imperfect, since the one selling hamburgers would, unlike observed evolution, be shown as gaining money).

15:27 Plagiarism? No, it's a common meme. If you claim man evolved from apes you will not be plagiarising AronRa.

I suppose, if you had gone from Ray Comfort to William Morris, sorry, Henry Morris, you might have found it there.

Or perhaps not, I did not recall that since From Nothing to Nature clearly, so it could be a gain of information since their time (but by the intelligent design commonly pursued of finding arguments, not by mutations, mind you!)

17:15 Have you heard any Creationist dispute the existence of natural selection? (Except me, I think we deal with providential selection)

And unsuited traits disappearing don't mean suited traits appearing. They have to exist in the first place for natural selection not to kill a whole population off instead of improving it.

17:24 "is exactly what Darwin wrote about"

You mean in the chapters where he described his observations, instead of philosophising about common origin of all living species?

And philosophising badly at that ...

17:40 Yes, precisely. Poorly suited characters disappearing is a loss of information.

Can actually happen in living beings that have information in the first place and most importantly alternative and suited information in the first place.

A yeast cell can't develop an eye by just losing information, OK ... that's the whole point.

17:48 Thank you!
Loss of information doesn't tell us anything about where that information came from in the first place. (Attributed : Forrest Valkai said so 23.XI.2021)

And one other thing that doesn't tell us anything about it is : observing mutations. At work. Even at work in speciation events.

17:54 Yeah, Forrest, did you think about your answer before you spoke it?

[Here was a debate which now has its own post : Debate with Shane Wilson and ReiperX]

20:11 "2/10?" Good for that level to have exposed you, if you go back to your question given in between 17:15 and 18:00 of the video!

Forrest Valkai to the Rescue of Radiometric Dating (Or Not?)

Forrest Valkai to the Rescue of Radiometric Dating (Or Not?) · L M and Comparative Religion to the Rescue of Forrest Valkai? · subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein? · How Carbon Dating is Done, Why My Calibration is Possible

Scientist Reacts to "Debunking Radiometric Dating" Video | Reacteria
30th Sept. 2021 | Forrest Valkai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2L7JDyI5U

Forrest Valkai did not respond under the profile bearing this name, one Shane Wilson did respond, so did one XraynPR who could be Shane, could even more be Forrest, since sometimes channel owners answer under another pseudonym, and also, obviously, could be genuinely a third person apart from them. The dialogues with these are inserted visibly and therefore you can skip them at a first reading, if you just want my comments on the video, text going all the way out to the left.

5:33 Biostratigraphic dating, stay tuned for their debunking of this one too.

My own, however, comes here. You have marine fossile sites or aquatic at least, in Grand Canyon and in lots of drill holes.

If a trilobite lies below a whale or a plesiosaur, perhaps it's not because there were millions of years from trilobite to whale or trilobite to plesiosaur, perhaps it's because trilobites are lower in the water than whales. Now, if plesiosaurs consistently lay lower (in single sites, not in layers mapped over different parts of the geography, but like in a single rock wall like GC or a single drill hole), that would be suggestive, because we know both creatures swam more or less near the surface, since they need to breath. However, I don't think there is one single spot on earth where a whale and a plesiosaur are found together, let alone hundreds where they come in the same order.

Now, let's get on to land vertebrates. Here we find big boneyards from same time, with same type of creature, but we do not find one layer of this type of bones (say Ceratopsians, safe bet "Cretaceous") over another layer of that type of bones (say Moschops capensis, safe bet it is classified "Permian" and probably is found near or in Karoo). As I mentioned Karoo, I actually wrote them. I knew their different types of bones come in different assemblage zones. In Tapanocephalus assemblage zone, you find, for instance, surprise surprise, Tapanocephalus, and also critters supposed to be contemporary with it. And in another assemblage zone another series of remains. So, what I asked them was, did they take a deeper dig anywhere in the Triassic layers to find out if there were Permian fossils below them. The answer was no. They didn't. They are perfectly content with finding Triassic fossils where the Triassic layer is on top, and also perfectly content with finding Permian ones where there are no Triassic or Jurassic layers above them, where Permian layer is on top.

I went over something like 40 - 80 different lagerstätten or fossil finds, with help of wikipedia, and this impression was systematically confirmed when I thought all of the site palaeocritti was going down, so, with permission of Tamura, I tried to copy it to a blog, when the timeout came, 2016, it turns out the google site still remains, and the thing that ceased was the handy short links.

6:00 Now, when it comes to absolute dating, we have only three actors in the play. History, dendro (with Greenland ice wharves etc), radiometric.

I'd count thermoluminous along with radiometric, and same with fission track.

7:07 Given that I just debunked (see my comment back at 5:33) biostratigraphic dating, fairly thoroughly, and given that fission track is more or less same thing as radiometric, what would you then bolster your age of the universe or age of earth with, as "clearly" past Biblical chronology?

7:11 "Evolution is still something we can directly see, right before our very eyes"

If you count things like Indian Long-Eared Hedgehogs getting (or keeping) longer ears than European hedgehogs, or beetles loosing their wings on windy islands .... but when was last time you observed:

• monocellular creatures evolve into multicellular ones with organs? (adding last precision to avoid equivocation on large colonies hanging together)
• any creature develop a new cell type?
• any mammal develop a new pair of chromosomes (or if you prefer, a new chromosome, new pair of chromatids, I am no expert, don't claim to know the present jargon, but when I was small, it was "pairs of chromosomes")?

Or for that matter, reason, morality or language arise from non-reason, amorality (not immorality, amorality), non-language?

7:13 "both in the fossil record and in laboratory experiments"

You spoke of sweating, perhaps you need another coffee too after too little sleep? I'll take one before I go on to answer this one.

[after first sips of a coffee:]

In order for the fossil record to show anything like evolution, it needs to be a record of millions of years, and not of one year with a very huge flood.

In order for lab experiments to show evolution, you need to count creation of new species with lowered functionality to directly dysfunctional individuals as evolution. Or for that matter, hybridising a rubus species with 4n with one with 8n to get a new variety with 6n - here the functionality is same for the rubus plant and enhanced for the external view point of the taste in the raspberries (done in Uppsala back the year I was born).

7:21 Ah, mutation and natural selection. Shown to produce for instance beetles with no wings that survive better on windy islands.

And erosion and weather ... sounds like a reference to "fossil record" and like you were prepared to debunk the idea of Flood geoogy from them ...see my point back at 5:33 on that one!

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and sorry, dude, if you think there was one flood for all of the fossils, then you are deluded. We can predict a lot of flood markers from such a flood like that, and guess what, we don't get them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson How about naming one?

Btw, if you meant "a layer of fossils all over the earth" I have already answered that in my debunking of biostratigraphy, see my comment on time signature 5:33.

7:25 It seems you have missed out on the French scientist who did experiments on rapid depisition from saturated quick flowing mud waters ... different grain sizes (verifiable if you colour sand grains size .5 mm black and such .75 mm are uncoloured, or whatever the grain sizes were) sort out spontaneously into different layers.

8:50 "Meteorites would have formed same time as the earth did ..."

That is, may I really nit pick about logic, please? an assumption.

Another one is, the lead we find in them comes from Uranium like the one we find in them.

10:24 "where would that have possibly come from?"

You are assuming either that lead doesn't occur on its own, or that that particular isotope of lead doesn't occur on its own. Or that the fact of both being together proves this is not the case right in this case.

To take your rhetoric question as a real one, God created the meteorite material like that or God allowed an already fallen Satan to mix U and Pb in the suggestive proportions in order to prepare for the end times delusion, that is at least two possibilities outside your assumption.

10:26 "these things have a set rate of decay"

• 1) This answer just once again states the assumption all of the Pb came from U;
• 2) and also implies one can actually test the decay rate of U into Pb.

We can historically test the decay rate of C14 into whatever it decays to (I have heard into C12 when I was smaller, now I hear into N14, not sure what that would do to the compounds the C14 is usually in). At least, there is some possibility the C14 levels could still be rising, and the actual decay rate be longer than we measure, since there is less left from when it was less in the atmosphere, but mainly, I think one can historically defend the idea C14 has been roughly same level since the Trojan War ... but was not yet that level in the time of Genesis 14.

Now, take the smallest amount of time measured with C14. You cannot go below 5 years. Then take the ratio of that from the whole of the halflife of 5730 years, and then apply the ratio to the halflives of U-Pb and K-Ar ... exactly, the same ratio won't be testable as humanly recorded history.

10:40 "several samples"

My alternatives both involve that the original, pre-decay, U-Pb ratio was roughly as today in all of a certain meteorite. Not a side contamination of extra Pb just in one part.

10:50 And no, I was not talking of accidental contamination by the geologist handling the sample either.

10:58 Er ... no. The rate of decay can in fact be rattled according to current laws of physics. In Atomic bombs and Nuke Reactors, U decays faster than it normally does. WITH the present laws of physics, thank you.

And it seems volcanism does in part get its fuel from nuclear reactions in the subterranean, and it seems there was a lot of volcanism in the Deluge, this means, there was a definite occasion at which decays of many isotopes could have gone much faster.

Now, would this also work for C14, as some on the RATE project suggested? No. The C14 atoms would arguably decay under those conditions, but this would not lower the overall level, since the C12 would massively get contaminated with the extra neutrons into lots of more C14 at the same time. But with U -> Pb or with K -> Ar this is not an issue.

11:09 "we know what the current ratio is and we know what the rate of decay is"

As mentioned earlier, no you don't know what the rate of decay is. Outside C14 that is. C14 can be tested for roughly staying at 100 pmC in atmosphere and if so decaying at 100 -> 50 in 5730 years back to the Trojan War. But the - see my comment on 10:26 posted as technically a "reply" to that on 8:50 - splinter 5 / 5730 = 0.00087260035.

Now, what is 0.00087260035 * 4.47 billion years or 0.00087260035 * 710 million years or 0.00087260035 * 1.278 billion years? I skip Uranium series taken first and Potassium-Argon taken last and go for the shortest one, Actinium, in the middle.

0.00087260035 * 710,000,000 = 619,546 years. You can check that with what historic fact? None.

And "current ratio" is not a single unchanging fact, unless you mean within the sample and material you test. When things have more of an isotope, you state that is bc of decay already having happened.

In fact, it is actually dumb to say "we know the original ratio because we know the current ratio and the rate of decay" if by current you mean within what you test. One knows time only in so far as one knows BOTH original AND current ratio as well as rate of decay (aka half-life, since usually given in that unit).

B- on your logic for this one!

And no, stating you can deduct third variable of a three part equation is not generally true, unless there is a known ratio between this variable and the other two, which there isn't if the only known ratio is itself one of the variables. You are bluffing on the math issue.

Shane Wilson

And if you talk to actual paleontologists, you'll realize how they can test to get the original ratios.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Well, why didn't Forrest Valkai bring on an actual paleontologist, then? He could have told us, and prefuted this comment of mine!

And if you are an actual paleontologist, why don't you proceed? And if you aren't, why don't you bring on one?

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl because you aren't exactly worth the effort and time. But how about you get your crap published in a peer review geological journal and overturn not only a major part of modern physics, but geology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson "because you aren't exactly worth the effort and time."

Theirs, that is. There are a lot of hecklers like you whose time I have been consistently worth, few weeks I have languished for debate with one.

"But how about you get your crap published in a peer review geological journal"

I get my things peer reviewed post my publishing them, whether as comments under a youtube or on blogs. In the case of the blogs, usually in the form of someone recommending me another video on the topic next time I go to youtube. I am more peer reviewed than most who do publish their crap in peer reviewed journals.

"and overturn not only a major part of modern physics, but geology."

Entirely gratuitous. The pre-publishing peer review is meant to prevent for instance Creationist materials to shine forth in the post-publishing review. p l u s ... I don't know what part of modern physics I am supposed to be overthrowing. Certainly not what is known of radioactivity here on earth if that is what you meant - as is apparent from your total lack of engagement with my actual argument above. As for Geology, you have missed my words on the actual state of paleo-finds since you didn't comment under my comment on time signature 5:33 where Forrest Valkai took up that.

+ @Shane Wilson Second time I mention my comment on 5:33, you have had more than a day to look it up ... and it is still there.

a

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and my point still stands, you aren't actually a credible person here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson This is what in logic is considered an ad hominem.

b

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So thank you for showing you don't actually submit to peer review.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson I submit all my publications on the blogs to whatever "post-publication" review (peer, inferior or superior) you want.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and a blog isn't a peer review publication. Sorry Hans, you've got jack.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson It's obviously not pre-publication reviewed. You are free, as is anyone else to review it post-publication.

If you meant the guys at CMI and ICR, they have their peer review to compensate for the anti-Creationist bias at Springer concern; Elsevier and similar.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so you have the same problem as ICR. You bypass actual peer review by making your own BS system of it (or try) when it isn't remotely equivalent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Peer review is no guarantee for truth. Good logic is. And you have better chances of good logic with post-publishing review than when more than half, more than 3/4 can be swept under the carpet with pre-publishing review. Sure, there are uses for pre-publishing review as well, when you get to one that's friendly on your take on things, like, they can say "I think you forgot this and that, would you like to add such a consideration and then come back" ... but when you have a pre-publishing review set on banning all and anything creationist, a creationist would be a fool to rely on it for publication.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, peer review isn't perfect, but its better than the crap you do. '

And do you know why creationist stuff doesn't get published? Because you guys can't actually follow science. You guys can't back up your claims. You get push back and you whine about it rather than showing why you're correct.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson A review committee from Nature that decides to publish nothing and say nothing doesn't count as pushback.

Your theory of "pushback + whining" is moonshine. You dream.

We show time after time why we are correct, it gets ignored time after time by those doing pre-publication review for certain papers. In the case of people on CMI, IRC and AiG this is only true for their creationist material, since material neutral to the issue does get published.

This means the peer reviewers at these organisations do have experience of the peer review you talk about. Myself I am only amateur in natural sciences, a bit more than that in linguistics (I haven't taken as Masters of Arts, but my study length could have sufficed for it, I didn't take those final exams for the degree though, and you can consider Latin my major).

+ @Shane Wilson btw, as you spelled "pushback" as "push back" - are you really a native English speaker or from somewhere else faking it? Many composite nouns are spelled as two words, but pushback isn't one of them, since "push back" looks too much like the verbal phrase.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl wah, I misspelled something. Were you able to still clearly understand what I meant by it? If so, then get over it. You look like a child when you do stuff like that.

+ @Hans-Georg Lundahl Dude, you aren't even an armature. You're a joke. You don't grasp the basics of science. You make excuses for why nobody takes your crap seriously rather than admitting the truth, because you can't back it up with evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson If by "basics of science" you mean materialism, believing anything resembling sth non-material is ultimately matter, that's basics of materialism, not of science.

I have given the evidence you keep ignoring by actually arguing about the mathematics of the datin techniques - and the geography of "biostratigraphy" (see comment to time signature 5:33). Not even adressing a thing remotely doesn't look like "not taking seriously" - and as a linguist, the kind of spelling mistakes that are called "hypercorrection" are typical for foreigners. I've seen East Europeans under English names before, though way clumsier than you, if I'm correct.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It is you dodging, and guess what Hans, typos happen. What matters is whether or not the point can be gotten across clearly, even with one or two. And it is pretty clear that it is.

But thanks for pointing out that you reject science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson I reject your school of science. Evolutionism. I know the history of ideas sufficiently well to know science has never been just one school.

+ @Shane Wilson Btw, would you mind getting a bit on the topic of my initial comment?

In 100 years, carbon 14 descends to 98.798 % of initial ratio. 100 / 5730 = 0.01745200698.

0.01745200698 * 4 470 000 000 = 78 010 471 years, unlike 100 years not historically testable. So why do you think the halflife of U-Pb is known?

In 10 years, carbon 14 goes down to 99.879 % of initial ratio. Even 7 801 047 years is beyond historic identification of real age.

Before you think "well, we can look in a lab how fast it decays" - no. 0.99879 to the power of (1 / 780 105) is not measurably different from 1. But even apart from that, Libby tried to go by a lab value and got the halflife of C14 to 5568 years, when it is 5730 years. That is, historic checking is paramount for knowing the real halflife of anything.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and you can't actually put up even a remotely good argument against evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Evolution would be off topic here. Forrest Valkai's video (this one, the one we comment under) is called // Scientist Reacts to "Debunking Radiometric Dating" Video | Reacteria // and Evolution is not mentioned in it. Or if it is, then just very briefly.

So, what I argue against under this one is ... radiometric dating. With an excursion, prompted by Forrest Valkai's dito, at time signature 5:33 and this excursion is about biostratigraphic relative dating.

+ So? What about my argument made at 11:09 (the time signature we are now arguing under) that the half lives for most methods (including U-Pb, both series, and K-Ar) is too long to be testable against history?

12:25 No, I don't think that C14 (range < 100,000 years) overlaps with any of the three larger "clocks" just mentioned.

As said, the smallest measurable time span with C14 decay is 5 years. And 5 / 5730 is a ratio which even for Actinium series gives a shortest range of over 600,000 years, if the decay rate is correctly assumed.

13:07 You simply haven't read the news.

You have missed every news Creationists leak out on diverging ages, and missing the news doesn't give you a right to say there isn't any.

I previously said thermoluminiscence is a bit like radiometric. Now, its range is closeish to C14.

Then we have the Mungo Man or perhaps more properly the Mungo Woman. One part dated a bit younger than the other (different types of tissue) but around 20 000 BP. But TL dated 40 000 BP. That is how we arrive at "Australia was peopled 40 000 BP".

Tas Walker - a Creationist, a Geologist and an Australian, on CMI, from whom I have this, dismissed the C14 dates as equally irrelevant. I don't.

20 000 BP = 18 000 BC. What real year and original C14 level correspond to that?

2845 B. Chr.

0.145681 pmC/100, so dated as 18 745 B. Chr.

2823 B. Chr.

0.172045 pmC/100, so dated as 17 373 B. Chr.

Or, to make it neater:

2845 BC

14.5681 pmC, so dated as 18 745 BC

2823 BC

17.2045 pmC, so dated as 17 373 BC

So, Mungo "Man" was on Oz c. 2834 BC, 123 years after the Flood, before Babel, and so spoke Hebrew, not a post-Babelic lingo.

At present youtube doesn't allow me to post links, but check "Creation vs. Evolution" + "New Tables"

Previous to 15:00 c. Yes, a lot of aberrant dates (million years old worth of argon after eruptions historically known, tens of thousand years old fossils in layers supposed to be millions of years) do get published by YEC.

But you don't find a lot of Evolution believing (or Forrest might prefer "real") scientists who double check and get for instance "not much argon" or "indetectable C14" in similar cases.

And you do find lots of people stating it is a waste of time ... because it was a creationist who brought it up ... "we know the earth is old anyway, see biostratigraphy" on which I commented already at 5:33 in this video.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Where are they publishing? Because obviously not in any type of reputable journal

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson How about reading all of the two comments I made?

Evolution believers are NOT showing the Creationist tests fake in their "reputable" journals, and I don't think a journal is reputable (at least on this issue with any topics too much touching it) as long as it systematically censors out the creationist pov.

You are playing the "authority" game because you lack arguments. Forrest Valkai did so when stating aberrant dates are published in Creationist publications and not showing how "reputable" journals repeat the same tests and show Creationists wrong on them.

15:14 Here I would for once disagree with the Creationists on the video.

It is certainly very improbable you could contaminate a diamond with younger carbon but not with more and more recent neutrons - as I already mentioned, speed up radioactivity (like an U bomb) next to C12 with some fraction of C14 and the net result is, you get more C14 - without any more carbon added.

15:32 (also relevant for the tirade previous to 15:00) "learn how peer review works!"

Like, evolutionists peer review evolutionists = peer review, but creationist peer reviews creationist =/= peer review?

Sounds lop-sided ... and why is post-publication review on the internet totally irrelevant, while pre-publication review on newspaper redactions has a right to decide what the public gets to see? Even more lopsided.

Random

It must suck to not be able to think more than one step at a time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Random You mean you feel sorry for Forrest Valkai?

While I didn't thought him all that good, I didn't put him in that class either.

You know, one can consider contamination by neutrons possible without considering that all the C14 dates for things purported to be "millions of years" are meaningless, just in case you meant me.

+ How about you take a look at how I deal with his "peer review" superstition, also in my comments above!

Random

Actually, I'm curious. What's the real reason that you take creationism so seriously?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Random

I'm a creationist grosso modo since age 9. I am young earth creationist strictly Biblical chronology since reading St. Augustine at age ... 31? 32? ... namely City of God. As a Catholic, I am bound to Church Fathers in Bible exegesis. I had heard this urban legend, they were against literalism in Biblical chronology, after reading City of God ... not so fast! That's just for the six days, which he actually shortened to one moment!

Random

That explains a lot. I had a feeling you weren't saying these things because you actually thought they were convincing.

I won't try to change your mind, because it's been made up for too long, and your sense of identity and probably community are wrapped up in this worldview. At best this would be pointless, and at worst it would be harmful.

A word of advice though: you can't convert atheists, especially scientifically-minded ones. It's not the same as moving people from one religion to another. We literally just don't think like you. Never in my life have I had a sense of a higher power, nor a feeling of free will. I am incapable of faith. I'd bet pretty much everyone here is the same. When you argue in favour of any religious belief, you're appealing to instincts that simply don't exist for us. You'd be wasting less time talking to people in other religious spaces instead of here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Random I'm not appealing to instincts, but to reason.

Random

Never encountered a good reason to believe, and even if I did, I'd probably stop believing the moment I found a good reason to stop. If Yahweh wants my acknowledgement, he can ask me himself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Random A good reason to believe : Jesus rose from the dead. A good reason to believe that as fact : the Church wrote it down as its history, very early on. Note, history, facts observed by human observers, not prophetic revelation in the sense of information given to one man only and then witnessed by him. And the reason to believe the Church on that : I believe any community about its history. Again, this word taken as about visible facts witnessed by many, not as analysis or prophecy.

16:06 Yes. Adam lived to 930, Noah to 950, generations one and ten from creation and the latter is more than halfway to Abraham in time (same number of generations, shrinking life spans).

16:20 "he could fit on his little boat"

I actually assumed water line at 14 cubits up, assumed both extreme versions of a cubit 18 and 24 for liminary calculations, assumed either full cubit or half cubit thickness of the wood in the walls of the Ark, and assumed wood densities from pine at 0.352 to rose wood at 0.88. The smallest weight available for animals and even more food (animals do tend to eat more than their own weight over a year) was on that calculation series 13,371.669 mt and the largest was 44,369.913 mt.

Even the smallest tonnage - 13 thousand 371 metric tons and 669 kilograms - is sufficient for more than the couples you would need if a baramin is typically the species tally of hedgehogs.

Did you say "little boat"? You really do need a coffee.

16:46 Between Flood and birth of Abraham, there are 942 - 1070 years, unless you consider Nachor was 170 not 70, in that case you could get up to 1170 years.

From Abraham's vocation (at 75) to the Exodus there are 430 years.

Now do some maths with annual population growth in a place in Africa - say Nigeria.

942 + 75 + 430 = 1447 years.

6 % annual population growth, means a factor of 1.06 to the power of 1447 years and that then applied to an original head tally of 8.

I think you know better than I how to read this result from a calculator:

3.316477269813986e+37 - I think it involves 37 digits or sth ...?

Actually, it is easier to get a readable result when we go just to Babel ... 401 after the Flood.

112,393,697,345 More than the present world population.

And 1447 - 401 = 1046 years more to go.

Try 3 % annual population growth, the medium for all of Black Africa ...

Just three percent you get, by the Exodus:
30,099,143,352,554,193,000

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl there was no Global Flood as described in the bible and no human lives 900+ years ..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR It so happens ...

At 5:33 Valkai was speaking about biostratigraphy, and the comment of mine starting "there" states that I have gone over the finds of land vertebrates and they don't overlap, they could extremely well all be from one single flood.

No man lives for 900 + years now, our lifespans have shrunk.

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl nope, humans never lived that long. That age comes from an incorrect translation afaik.

There was no global flood. Multiple civilisations lived through the proposed time without any issues or recordings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR "nope, humans never lived that long."

A universal negative is a fairly big claim.

• You weren't there;
• drastic variations of lifespan are possible, like Lipitza horses living twice as long as normal ones

"That age comes from an incorrect translation afaik."

I don't think so, but argue it out if you like.

"There was no global flood."

A universal negative is a fairly big claim. This time you try to argue, so ...

"Multiple civilisations lived through the proposed time without any issues or recordings."

Only if our dates for them are correct.

We have very good dates for Rome and even Neo-Assyrian Empire. We don't have any similarily good dates for how to place III dynasty of Ur absolutely.

Btw, my "proposed time" is c. 3000 BC - like 2957.

Then again, you can refer to carbon dated things (bones or artefacts) not matching the Biblical chronology, and my answer is re-calibrating C14.

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah, they don't only use carbon dating ...

You cannot disprove that Odin created the world, you were not there

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR " yeah, they don't only use carbon dating ..."

When it comes to Sumerian and Egyptian, there are basically two methods : texts from them, plus carbon. I've stated texts are inadequate for a good chronology from these and I have also stated carbon 14 buildup is possible in ways compatible with Biblical chronology for the Flood.

Which of these two parts didn't you understand, and why, or are you proposing a third method of knowing when?

"You cannot disprove that Odin created the world, you were not there"

Since he was son of a giantess, his existence presupposes some kind of world already being there.

But I guess you mean the buildup from Muspelheim and Niflheim and Ginnungagap preceding him? Well, sparks from Muspelheim creating life by landing in Niflheim and melting so the melt water gets into the Gap, that sounds like a very impossible version of Abiogenesis - like the Miller Urey version as well.

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl What do you even think Miller-Urey tried to do?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR They tried to show that under certain conditions - note that well, certain conditions and not other ones - abiotic molecules combine to small strands of biological building blocks. Well, not all of them .... membranes have phospholipids and they don't form under Miller-Urey conditions.

Now, I spoke of the "Miller Urey version" namely of "Abiogenesis" (already mentioned), and the Miller-Urey version of Abiogenesis involves several major problems that Miller-Urey conditions (those replicated in experiment) totally won't solve, and for which the building blocks as produced are totally not an adequate start, as in the Miller-Urey conditions that produced them, they also soon dissolve. So, while the Miller-Urey experiment is a validated experiment that others have repeated, the Miller-Urey version of Abiogenesis is as mythological or mythomaniac as sparks on ice producing (immediately) more or less intelligent life.

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so you know it wasn't about creating life, good.

Then you should have a look at the rest of OOL research, since Urey Miller is not the only thing that's been done.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR I did.

That is exactly the reason why what you call "OOL research" and I called "Miller Urey version of Abiogenesis" (as distinct from Norse myth or Babylonian myth versions of Abiogenesis, probably Greek myth as well) simply isn't a viable explanation for getting life.

Phospholipid problem, ordered but not symmetric information production problem, chirality problem, "sth other before phospholipids" proposals ... I've been there.

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl there is much more to OOL than Urey-Miller though

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR Yes, and these other things don't work.

For instance, NASA had an idea and then took it down on earliest life having membranes of some detergent like substance before there were phospholipids. A very bad prequel to phospholipids, right?

If you have massive amounts of teeming one celled life with detergent like membranes, these would be very likely to destroy the first attempts at phospholipid membranes later.

Or, phospholipids formed on Montmorillonite clays ... but since these clays are fossil, how do we know their composition isn't determined by life, it more probably is that?

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you mean this?

"Fatty Acid/Phospholipid Blended Membranes: A Potential Intermediate State in Protocellular Evolution"

How was that taken down?

Also, since bilayers of lipids do form spontaneously iirc, why would that be an issue?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR No, I don't mean that one.

Bilayers of lipids form spontaneously only under the condition the lipids exist in the first place. They are not elements of Mendeleyev's table, and they are - as mentioned - NOT formed under the Miller-Urey conditions.

The one you mentioned, I haven't looked at yet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR I found it, it was not on NASA but on pubmed. I have no access to its entire text, here is from abstract:

"Prior to the evolution of membrane proteins, intrinsic membrane stability and permeability to polar solutes are essential features of a primitive cell membrane. These features are difficult to achieve simultaneously in model protocells made of either pure fatty acid or phospholipid membranes, raising the intriguing question of how the transition from fatty acid to phospholipid membranes might have occurred while continuously supporting encapsulated reactions required for genomic replication."

It seems the article talks of a transition from an already existing membrane which already involves some kind of lipids, either phospholipids or fatty acids.

As both phospholipids and fatty acids are produced in living organisms, this is not a viable first step from primordial soup (formed by Miller Urey conditions) to living cells.

"Here, the properties of a blended membrane system composed of both oleic acid (OA), a monoacyl fatty acid, and 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC), a diacyl phospholipid are described."

How nice .... none of these form in Miller Urey conditions, and all of these are made by already living things! In organisms, or in labs (using other experiment conditions than the Miller Urey setup).

17:25 No, there were not eight generations between Noah and Moses.

On the Ark, there were not just four males, but eight people overall.

17:37 With 3 % annual population growth, by the time of the Exodus you get way more than we are now.

30,099,143,352,554,193,000, with a chronology like Roman Martyrology.

10 million people is a piece of cake, when an original family of 8 (or 2 in one and 6 in next generation) can expand all over the earth and find new land just for the digging and have no frontiers or rivals to worry about.

PLUS, have you even tried to ask any relevant question on how US Census or UNO Census can have any reasonable idea on the world population when the Pyramids were built?

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yes because humans just reproduce like mathematical statistics.

Can you get less silly arguments please?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR I actually gave real life statistics and I mentioned the result drawn out as showing the actual result (much lower) is well within possibilities.

Can you get less silly objections, please?

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl one family of 8 spreading over the entire globe? Ever heard of incest? Come on ...

You didn't give real life statistics, you give exponential growth and that's it - populations don't work like that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR I gave exponential growth from a certain real life statistic.

The reason populations don't work like that now is, we are more or less cramped among other people. The 8 from the Ark weren't, so you can predict the possibility of not strictly exponential growth at least approaching for some while after the Flood.

As to "incest" I think you confuse that word for a sin and a crime with "inbreeding" - I also think you have somewhat prejudiced, outdated and c. 1900 AD ideas about what inbreeding will actually do.

Update

prior to L M, off topic, see "interesting update" below, XraynPR had answered on topic, here comes his answer and my response on that one:

XraynPR

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah it will mess up your genes, which is one of the many reasons the Flood is impossible. Even today we can see a bottleneck of a human extinction event, where we barely survived with a few ten thousand humans left.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@XraynPR No, it will not mess up your genes. It will combine in two examples some chromosomes which, due to previously messed up genes, would have been better in only one example.

This is a fairly good reason why the lowered lifespans after the Flood are possible : inbreeding.

But the long lifespans before the Flood mean, this inbreeding would not have blasted all and everyone with tens of bad conditions that kills one off rapidly, since the inbreeding started out with genes not too messed up.

19:01 Two reasonable identification of Job's unicorns:

• one type of Rhinocerus
• Triceratops, if the nose horn grew quicker than the two top horns (and men saw live ceratopsians).

Shane Wilson

Triceratops isn't a reasonable identification, they were extinct for millions of years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson That's the precise issue at stake with the dating game ... can you test the claim "millions of years" or can't you?

If the dating game is bad, the claim triceratopsians were extinct is not a factual objection, as long as it is dubious, it is not a valid refutation.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, we can test "millions of years." I know you reject it, but its called radiometric dating. But your ignorance and refusal to accept reality doesn't make your claims any better.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson I have commented, with appropriate time signature, on every single test Forrest Valkai in this video purported to support millions of years with (ok, not much detail on thermoluminiscence).

You have studiously avoided getting into clinch on any one of them and attribute to me very flat commonplaces like knowing I "reject" it. Sure, I reject it as well as I also refute what it is supposed to be argued from, and you support it but shy away from all detailed argument.

+ @Shane Wilson "your ignorance"

Projecting, since if you weren't ignorant, you'd have argued scientific detail.

"and refusal to accept reality"

Psychoanalysing, what a very convenient trick to give Forrest Valkai a break on the actual business of refuting me.

"your claims"

Why speak of claims when you absolutely daren't even look any of my arguments in the face?

19:29 Have you noticed, blood clots are one result of antibodies, and some vaccines around for Covid 19 cause quite a lot of these.

You know, Covid 19 is not totally good for your health, but neither are blood clots!

Shane Wilson

Blood clots from the vaccine are very rare. Do you know what is more common? Blood clots from Covid-19.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Oh, probably.

But blood clots from Covid 19 falls under "act of God" while blood clots from vaccine falls under human mismanagement. Something one may want not to be part of.

Btw, blood clots from some vaccines are so not rare that Swedish immunologists or whatever have proposed to forbid Pfizer's vaccine.

A l s o ... Corona virus being a virus and not a bacterium requires some type of living cells to get cultivated through, a nutrition solution is not enough. Do you know what living cells are usually used? Cell lines from human abortions, specifically from one human abortion in the Netherlands in the 70's.

Make that human abortion victim, by the way!

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl wah? So what fetal lines are used for some vaccines. Guess what, that single fetal line has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Saving a life can certainly add to your chances of eternity if you do it before you die, but your corpse saving lives (whether by a cell line or by people eating you on the raft Medusa) can't.

19:55 Yes, as I noted at 5:33, you pretend biostratigraphy would be enough to bolster evolution, so I'd like to see them take a go at biostratography, you already saw mine (under my note 5:33).

I suppose their video on fossils may be relevant?

Game Over

Seek help. Your ego is bleeding through the comments and it reeks

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Game Over I'm sorry, but your comment is not argument, it is ad hominem and after Shane Wilson and another guy already were heavy on those, this extra instance of ad hominem reeks of harrassment.

How about asking Forrest Valkai to deal with the arguments? His ego seems to be somewhat bleeding through his silence!

Game Over

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and your narcissistic, yikes. Seek help. Posting dozens of comments on a youtube section isn’t going to breathe life into your pseudoscience.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Game Over "and your narcissistic, yikes. Seek help."

I don't believe in the pseudo-science called psychology.

"Posting dozens of comments on a youtube section"

You perhaps did not notice that Forrest Valkai's own video was dozens of comments on a youtube by John and Jane, if that was their names?

"isn’t going to breathe life into your pseudoscience."

Come on! I am being told to confront myself to opposite viewpoints, that's what I'm doing here. Forrest Valkai, unlike you, actually didn't start from "the scientists are so bright, anyone who opposes them is a narcissist" but he was on a fairly basic level trying to actually grasp with their actual arguments. When I'm taking it to what I consider a level higher, for some reason, he's not in the game. But, for some reason, you are.

Is smearing me as a "narcissist" who doesn't know what he's talking about and who therefore isn't worth checking out your last hope of supporting Forrest Valkai's position?? If not, why did you check this out in the first place?

Game Over

@Hans-Georg Lundahl to a higher level? Your in a comment section my guy
Maybe start with a source that corroborates what you are saying. I can claim the bible says 2+2=5 so there is no god. You are chasing your own tail spouting all this babble into the air with no ground to stand on

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Game Over " to a higher level? Your in a comment section my guy"

Yes, and he is in a video ... wait, you mean the comment section is in each screen on levels below the actual video?

"Maybe start with a source that corroborates what you are saying."

I'm so sad you cannot see the difference between an argument and a fact claim. Fact claims need sourcing, arguments about the sources already presented don't need that.

"I can claim the bible says 2+2=5 so there is no god."

I find it tragic that you have no sense of logic proportion when offering such a parallel!

"You are chasing your own tail spouting all this babble into the air with no ground to stand on"

And positively appelling that you come with such ad hominems ... know what? I'll block you!

[Done.]

Interesting update : when I connected today, I found the post published, but I also found a very long comment, promising a debate that merits a post of its own. No, that long comment was not after, but before this was published, I checked./HGL

Update II : exchange with "Game Over" above./HGL

Update III, just after : It is six days since I placed my last comment under the video. I get comments back, and I am fine with that, but unto this day, all of these days, I have not had one of the commenters even try to get to grip with the arguments I made on actually carbon dating or other dating methods of the radiometric type, and my comment at 5:33 - actually seven days ago - still has no response./HGL