Debunking popular science videos on the origin of life & RNA world. Stated Clearly & Be Smart.

The channels "Stated Clearly" and "Be Smart" are wrong about the origin of life. Here's why.
Help support the channel: / @longstoryshortvideos
Debunking "Where Did Life Come From? (feat. PBS Space Time and Eons!) " • Where Did Life Come Fr...
Debunking "Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?" • Can Science Explain th...
Debunking "What Is the RNA World Hypothesis?" • What Is the RNA World ...

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

REFERENCES: (1) "Where Did Life Come From? (feat. PBS Space Time and Eons!) "kzbin.info/www/bejne/laake4xnotanrZY (2) "Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?" kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJi0faynjMZ2mKM (3) "What Is the RNA World Hypothesis?" kzbin.info/www/bejne/gWLbn4x8eL9sj8k (4) “What Is Indicative Mood? In grammar, the indicative mood is a verb form you use to make declarative statements that you assume to be factually accurate, such as when you ask a question in the form of a statement or state an opinion as if it were a fact.” www.masterclass.com/articles/indicative-mood-explained (5) The passive voice is a sneaky way to avoid explaining embarrassing facts. (“I broke the vase.” VS “The vase just… broke.”) (6) Prebiotic chemicals for the Miller/Urey experiment: Kasting JF. Earth’s Early Atmosphere. Science 1993: 259; 920-926. (7) The predominant molecular structures produced in prebiotic scenarios are "toxic" in the chemical sense, because they would hamper or prevent desired reactions. see: Wotos A. el al., Synthetic connectivity, emergence, and self-regeneration in the network of prebiotic chemistry. Science 2020; 369: 1584. (8) References to articles by the lab of Sijbren Otto: (a) Carnall JMA, Waudby CA, Belenguer AM, Stuart MCA, Peyralans J J-P, Otto S. Mechanosensitive Self-Replication Driven by Self-Organization. Science 2010: 327; 1502. (b) Malakoutikhah M, Peyralans J J-P, Colomb-Delsuc M, Fanlo-Virgós H, Stuart MCA, and Otto S. Uncovering the Selection Criteria for the Emergence of Multi-Building-Block Replicators from Dynamic Combinatorial Libraries. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 18406-18417. (9) “Even the impressive fidelity of the three hydrogen bonds in a single Watson-Crick G ·C nucleobase pair is insufficient to pay the cost of assembly, and hydrogen bonds between individual nucleotides or nucleobases are not observed in aqueous solution until higher order oligomers are used (n >= 4)” From: Sawada T, Fujita M. A single Watson-Crick GC base pair in water: Aqueous hydrogen bonds in hydrophobic cavities. JACS 2010: 132; 7194-7201. (10) References to anhydrous synthesis, storage and use and DNA monomers: (a) Sinha, N. D., et al., Polymer support oligonucleotide synthesis XVIII: use of beta-cyanoethyl-N,N-dialkylamino-/N-morpholinophosphoramidite of deoxynucleosides for the synthesis of DNA fragments simplifying deprotection and isolation of the final product. Nucleic Acids Res, 1984. 12(11): 4539-4557. (b) Beaucage, S. L., Oligodeoxyribonucleotides synthesis: Phosphoramidite approach. Methods Mol Biol, 1993. 20: 33-61. (11) "A second major problem with the chemical replication of RNA is that RNA duplexes >20- 30 nucleotides in length are difficult or impossible to thermally denature under template copying conditions" From: Engelhart, A., Powner, M. & Szostak, J. Functional RNAs exhibit tolerance for non-heritable 2′-5′ versus 3′-5′ backbone heterogeneity. Nature Chem 5, 390-394 (2013). doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1623

[@sensen9235]

Looked at ur references and looked at other papers; by me i mean i had gpt4 analyze them and compare; all in all ive realized anyone can do these bullshit debunking videos, just as anyone the scientific community with enough expertise can debunk them😊

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

​@@sensen9235 huh?

[@pigzcanfly444]

@@sensen9235 so you used an A.I. which has known bias and flaws built into it to analyze data for a field it was not designed to contemplate or understand? Don't be lazy. Go look at the references yourself.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

The RNA hypothesis it not dead. Nice of you to lie to those that don't much science.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@sensen9235 The videos were not debunked nor was the actual science. Its just the usual Discovery Institute anti-science propaganda.

[@LarghettoCantabile]

"Did you know that penguins are left-handed?" That gave me a real good laugh! Well done.

[@raspberryflash583]

Yes, the undying humor of this channel

[@mcmanustony]

@@raspberryflash583 which fails to hide the anti-science religious agenda

[@solus6894]

These videos are phenomenally good! I can't thank you enough for making them. In fact, I want to know more about who made and sponsored them , and if I can support your work in some way.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

You can join as a channel member, that's currently the best way to support the work. Thanks!

[@walkergarya]

These videos are nothing more than creationist propaganda. They are crap.

[@walkergarya]

These videos are creationist propaganda. If you think that is "good", you have a very different definition for "good" than mine.

[@murrayrothtard6072]

@@walkergaryawhat did he get wrong?

[@walkergarya]

@@murrayrothtard6072 RNA has been shown to develop on its own. The people who wrote this video are NOT scientists, they are frauds.

[@shadowknightgladstay4856]

I can't watch a evolution documentary without seeing these everywhere.

[@waspanimations7037]

You and me both

[@fruitylerlups530]

im so sick of this crap while im just trying to learn about biology and paleontology.

[@justacarbonbasedlifeform4990]

Cause its not true

[@7ebr830]

@fruitylerlups530 It doesn't sound like you're trying to learn anything. If there are misstatements in the video, point them out. If there aren't any, then you're learning something and hopefully, you will end up with a more truly scientific mind.

[@justacarbonbasedlifeform4990]

@@7ebr830 what are the misstatements

[@Greenie-43x]

"And invited to do a TED Talks" 😆

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

After ‘em guys! The Emperor wears no bloody clothes.

[@dilbertfish]

@praxitelispraxitelous7061 Neither do penguins.

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

@@dilbertfish the difference is that everyone knows about penguins

[@lovewillbeourhome]

So what you are saying is, "They make what they cannot use, and use what they cannot make"?

[@shazibjehangir]

Where can we support this channel?

[@JasonSmith-wg2eg]

I think that part of the problem is that we have had so many scientific advancements in the recent past and have gained so much knowledge as a species that we feel like we know everything. It's hard to believe that a subject that has been studied so intensely and deeply has not produced any meaningful answers. It's ok to admit we have no idea how life started . It doesn't make you some sort of religious fundamentalist if you admit we are lacking in knowledge. It just means that you believe in science and know that science has not figured this one out yet.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

The problem is the video is from religious fundamentalists, its look like standard Discovery Institute anti-science propaganda.

[@spamsam99]

Exactly right, they have no real evidence or clue to back their hypothesis but pretend otherwise. But junk “science “ is Uber present in the biological realm. They claim a sequence of chance events led to life, but ignore basic probability and statistics that support the impossibility of their theories. Ie if probability calculations says something is likely to happen once in 100 billion years; we are safe to say it can never and has never happened.

[@christophermonteith2774]

True, but the video is itself hypocritical, hostile and somewhat dishonest itself, so not a great source of information. In general it is a good idea to say we don't know when we, well, don't know though

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@christophermonteith2774 They think they know because their religion tells them so. This is not merely somewhat dishonest unfortunately. It is willfully deceptive, and disingenuous and I am pretty sure that you are merely being polite about it. We don't know neither do they but they fight against us ever learning how things really happened. See Dr Tour's demand that such research stop.

[@Skyfoogle]

you naively assume that this account is just science skepticism. they're on team jesus and think they know exactly how life came to be.

[@ronysmith1]

Haha, I actually just watched that PBS video a few weeks ago and commented on that - not having references! You are so right (and very-referenced)😂

[@abbynormal9836]

Probably because of common sense and scientific consensus

[@ronysmith1]

@@abbynormal9836 Well, the consensus will change now and then, contradicting prior consensus. I can think of a couple of topics right away.. And common sense is sometimes only common because the consensus published it. The human incentives are money, prestige, and/or power. Not everything, including 'science' is as squeeky clean as people think. I've gone down a lot of rabbit holes, and I found a lot of foxes...

[@abbynormal9836]

@@ronysmith1 It’s been more than a 100 years since a scientific theory was debunked and replaced with a new one.

[@ronysmith1]

@@abbynormal9836 Do you recall the recent James Webb telescope images showing fully-formed galaxies only 300 million years after the big bang? Or how about dinosaur soft tissue found in dinosaur bones that were supposed to be fossils. Or how about the global cooling crisis of the 70's changed to global warming crisis of the 90's changed to climate change crisis in the 2000's? Or the discovery of new sub atomic particles from the LHC? The 'boundary' of our knowledge of the physical universe is constantly expanding and causing us to rethink and rewrite old ideas

[@JasonSmith-wg2eg]

@@abbynormal9836 Very true, absolutely nothing has changed, scientifically, in the lastt 100 year. It's been a very quiet time.

[@TheHeartOfTheHour1]

Your ability present unbiased and factual information is very satisfying. Thank you. Great content!

[@adrianthom2073]

How is it unbiased?

[@richtomlinson7090]

@@adrianthom2073 did you catch how he tried to slam methodological naturalism. They really didn't have the guts to make supernatural or magical claims, but deep down they wanted to.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@richtomlinson7090 the videos does make valid criticisms of Abiogenesis and the flaws it has. However the channel clearly promotes ID as the alternative solution. You can watch many of the previous videos and you can see that.

[@LazyUggugg]

@@adrianthom2073 well at least they don’t try to water board us with their beliefs. It’s still a tad annoying that they’re trying to influence what people believe even if it’s by a little bit

[@adrianthom2073]

@@LazyUggugg , agree, things could be worse. Some countries non believers or people of other faiths are prosecuted.

[@omarhossam789]

May all of us be guided to the truth, from my heart I thank you for your hard work in your factual and scientifically backed videos and wish you the best.

[@igesbpro]

"Must have" xD

[@ch2oma]

Thanks for your team putting out such an effort, very educative.

[@uriabinenshtok]

Question. where do I get that self baked cupcake (my neighbor is out of cupcakes)

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

A laboratory chemical supply shop probably (some baking or stealing may be required).

[@uriabinenshtok]

@@LongStoryShortVideos can you do a video about yourself, like how/where you learned all that you know, and what made you look the other way everyone was looking (your story). or does this request needs time to evolve/bake itself

[@pigzcanfly444]

​@@uriabinenshtok an origin story may not be on the recipe list. Besides he can do this debunking anonymously and still be correct about everything he is saying. At the very least this is teaching critical thinking and analysis of data.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@pigzcanfly444 but he has not debunked anything. He has shown that Abiogenesis does have many problems.

[@pigzcanfly444]

​@@adrianthom2073 is abiogenesis an unfalsifiable claim?

[@jacobmcbride2491]

The birthday cake 🤣

[@caresabout]

So what do you propose that must replace evolution?

[@problemsolver3254]

an invisible man in the sky.

[@pigzcanfly444]

Genetic entropy is the replacement mechanism for evolution. Chemical evolution is a misnomer since you cannot get heavier elements to form without supernova and cannot fuse past iron. considering that this channel is only covering the tip of the iceberg in terms of problems for abiogenesis and evolution it will be interesting to see how long you hold up the cognitive dissonance.

[@tiffanymagee2700]

An intelligent Designer. That's where the evidence leads.

[@TimKnight-is3wu]

That's a false choice. Let's just follow the facts (not stories) and discover where they lead us. It's also okay (and refreshing) to say, "we don't know how it happened", instead of coming up with a confident narrative that is not proven ridiculously implausible.

[@Dandymancan]

Can you leave a link of resources backing your claims? Thanks

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

REFS updated in the pinned comment

[@paulhammer2279]

So where are the links the the face slappingly obvious alternate hypotheses?

[@richardevans6529]

Genesis chapter 1.

[@AchHadda]

To be honest you have two options designed or not designed. We seen enough failure of not designed argument how about you consider the designed part of it, and forget about religions for now just focus on what science tell you about this designer by critical thinking, all knowledgeable, all powerful, ever lasting with no beginning and end. And then go from there.

[@TmanRock9]

@@richardevans6529 genesis has already been disproven decades ago.

[@captaingaza2389]

@@richardevans6529 That’s the claim Where is the evidence?

[@adrianthom2073]

@@richardevans6529 , Genesis fails to explain anything correctly about the natural world. Not a very good alternative for a scientific theory.

[@borkior1977]

I find it funny that the basis of this argument is that this person thinks the word ‘like’ meanings that the chemicals used weren’t the same as the chemicals since durning early earth. When we do know in fact that these chemicals were in fact the same; methane, ammonia, nitrogen … etc that would be found in the atmosphere at that time. It makes no difference that these chemicals were manufactured or not

[@fruitbouquet5479]

Exactly. What more do we need, editor? Time machine?

[@jordynjackson6575]

​@fruitbouquet5479 that would work, yeah, build a time machine. At least then you can see the lack of evidence for your oh so scientific theory

[@houstandy1009]

The early atmosphere is now believed to be carbon dioxide and nitrogen not the reducing one Miller-Urey thought. To be honest I don't really think it matters, naturally occurring amino acids and nucleic acids are not really the problem. Them putting themselves together into a replicator is the problem. Also I think it does make a difference if you are using large quantities of bought in chemicals. How is nature producing the large volume that you are using, how is nature extracting the things you need from the rubbish. For example if you find trace ribose in a meteor at a dilution of 7 parts per billion, nature has no way of extracting it from the crap surrounding it, if you then go buy a jar of ribose and can't see an issue in using it with the other pure for chemicals you bought, then I think you're kidding yourself.

[@7ebr830]

@borkior1977 Wow, way to miss an explicit argument. The video pokes fun at the idea that the Urey-Miller experiment was representative of the conditions of the prebiotic world (pbw) because the chemicals used were in concentrations and purities not found in the nature, so the idea that they were _like_ those in the pbw are disingenuous if not outright misleading. It's like saying a KFC drumstick is "like" a chicken, or vice versa. No, it isn't. I recently came across an idea that stupidity is not a function of intelligence, but of morality. You are intellectually dishonest, hence you say stupid things. The video is clear in its meaning, but you aren't able to be honest enough with yourself to deal with what it really said, so you create this dumb strawman.

[@joshuachaffin1858]

@@7ebr830care to link to the study about stupidity and morality? Sounds interesting

[@Tarekdawah]

4:38 also wanna add to your point is that even if these amino acids were at a perfect condition they’re just a chemical structure that no matter how many times you stack them on each other they’ll never give you life, because life needs code, life needs DNA, life needs an informational system, not just materials

[@CesarClouds]

Your opinion is based on?

[@7ebr830]

@Thekeeperq21 Oh, has science demonstrated that Life doesn't need code, doesn't need DNA? I didn't know that. Kindly explain.

[@houstandy1009]

@@CesarClouds probably observation, experimentation and math

[@CesarClouds]

@houstandy1009 I'll do better than "probably" - its actually not. What TheKeeperq21 asserted has never been demonstrated with math, science, observation, and/or experiments.

[@DartNoobo]

​@@CesarCloudslife doesn't need a code? Ok, pal, are you tired of baking cakes? Cus I got summin' to seel ya!

[@justreadjohn]

Thanks bro

[@LegitFUry]

I feel like this is a purposefully-made reflexive exercise for a critical thinking course. Like, this video says that you should be wary of people burying their hypothesis and presenting unsubstantiated facts in a biased way, and yet, whoever made this video refuses to disclose who they are, their own research background, or even who those “5 PhD scientists” mentioned at the start even are.

[@MarkTAllenby]

Exactly. This video so perfectly does what it criticises others for doing that I wonder if it's really a clever parody of creationism.

[@pigzcanfly444]

So you deger to the use of applying a genetic fallacy in order to reject the information presented? Anonymity has its purposes and we can all attest that this is irrelevant to whether or not the claims made are legitimate, yes?

[@MarkTAllenby]

@@pigzcanfly444 The main issue here is that the video criticises others for weaknesses in their arguments whilst displaying the same weaknesses. This is very common. We tend to demand more rigorous standards for the things we don't agree with than with the things we agree with. We should all be aware of this if our aim is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

[@LegitFUry]

@@pigzcanfly444 Not what I'm sayin', buddy.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@Mark Allenby rather we should all be made aware of legitimate problems to get a better picture of what we are dealing with so as not to skew our understanding of reality. When you accept some data at face value and reject the other data points based purely on the fact that it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions of reality then you are merely seeking confirmation of your bias and cannot follow the data where it leads. Seeing these videos as mere critical attacks is also shallow considering that the point of the videos is to drive people to think about the big picture with all known aspects of current understanding in the relwvant fields of study. Attempts to stifle the truth of the situation are from those who do not admit these problems actually exist and must be overcome.

[@shimshon_editz_]

Those people: (gulp)🤫 “Hopefully they buy it.” This guy: “FBI OPEN UP!” But no joke this guy and his videos are awesome! 🎉

[@BigJMC]

I think where a lot of these misconceptions also come from the simplifications of topics with a lot more technicality’s to them.

[@7ebr830]

What misconception?

[@qaahzi]

Literally the most promising KZbin channel I've seen, your work is outstanding!

[@HW-sw5gb]

You think it’s “promising” because it’s manipulating science to push an religious agenda you like. You should feel ashamed

[@jrssutherland]

You need to get out more and I mean that in a kindly way.

[@JessicaSunlight]

@@jrssutherland Why not you get out, out of here more often? It seems you have nothing to offer any way 🙂 And I also mean it in a kind way.

[@cptrikester2671]

I so much like the Be Smart dissing.

[@truthbebold4009]

Can't stand that channel. Even their channel name is garbage but it's better than their previous name...'It's OK To Be Smart' 🤦‍♂️

[@musaaziri3568]

have you thought of doing some review of the Tour-Farina debate on the origin of life? I mean, only the relevant data that was put forward by both parts.

[@joshuapatrick682]

It's sad that this channels gets purposefully buried by the algorithm for simply asking science to science correctly...

[@AchHadda]

Well that's an assertion thought 😂

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@AchHadda That’s an extremely ironic comment given you can’t state your argument in plain English. Just openly say “I don’t think abiogenesis is possible”. Ofc you’re too cowardly to say it in plain term became you know it makes normal people (correctly) think you’re stupid

[@popularmisconception1]

sorry, but this video criticized no science, only some popularization of science

[@User10111]

im suprised they havent had it removed tbh

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@User10111 There is no “they” lol. This is just a shitty pro-creationist channel in a sea of thousands. You should feel bad for believing in them

[@MrMaxKeane]

I love the channels you talked about, but you do make a very compelling video :)

[@zachheatherich4781]

Another amazing video, keep up the good work man

[@kevinlawrence1582]

I will give this channel this though he's definitely getting some good funding from someone. I only ever see these videos as ads. 🤣🤣🤣

[@shrimpytcoon]

thanks for useful information. Can you make video about vestigial organs and genetic diseases? we have some questions about its and intelligent design?

[@popularmisconception1]

They are a hard evidence that ways of God are mysterious. And their practical use is to test our faith and separate the doubters from the 144 thousands. Only a heretic would doubt God's plan for us. If god didn't want us to put disbelievers on gallows, why would he put the thought of inventing the gallows into us? and so on...

[@danielsmith7856]

The big bang must of happened

[@captainzappbrannagan]

What's your credentials? What are the alternatives to life arising naturally?

[@tomobrien5795]

Dude, you need to catch Dr James Tour on the fallacies of naturally-occurring ‘Origin of Life’.

[@captainzappbrannagan]

@@tomobrien5795 The alternative is magic. Grow up. No gods exist, santa died lady.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

@@captainzappbrannagan No you have it backwards. Life and it’s complexity arising naturally without any goal or purpose is magic. Takes a heck of a lot more faith to believe that all this is an accident rather than it was intended.

[@captainzappbrannagan]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp Lol listen to yourself, a magic fairy did it because you don't understand chemistry and biology. Go to your knees and take it from your easter bunny if that makes you happy.

[@AchHadda]

What other alternative do you see ?? And be honest and don't limit yourself to natural causes, and you will get your answer

[@bella-bee]

There’s another thing that gets said: “given long enough” (anything can happen - enabling the vanishingly unlikely things that you describe). Can you address that please?

[@thomasjohnson1762]

He has made previous videos on this topic

[@BradleyAndrew_TheVexis]

That part at the end of getting tenure, money, and a Ted talk is a big one. Lots of science communities are less and less about actual science and more about making papers fitting the status quo, getting that decent job by not being risky with ideas, and just continuing the cycle because it's easy and risk free.

[@mcmanustony]

Examples?

[@jonathanc1084]

I really like your video! I laughed so hard when they were explaining MRNA replication??? 🤣🤣🤣

[@Fanboy1222]

thank ya mane

[@nulusiii480]

14:16 poor Lee Cronin 😂

[@burnem2166]

We missed you so much ❤

[@JimmyK53]

Fantastic work at being critical without addressing the vast mountains of evidence. Just curious, how do you explain ERVs? Id love to see a video explaining those

[@feelyoung79]

What "mountains" of evidence??😂😂😂 That's the problem. Man is not God nor did he create the universe nor was he around or had a hand in creation being formed. Talk about evidence, watch "man walked with dinosaurs proof" find a good documentary on it. Fascinating! Men called dinosaur's dragons. The name dinosaur barely came about close to the mid 1800's. A T- Rex thigh bone was recently discovered not long ago with actual tissue with DNA that according to science was impossible but there we have it. Maybe they have been off with all these ridiculous numbers like 236 million or billion years ago, how do you know it wasn't just 230 million or billion years ago? How do you know period because none of us were around that long ago to test or witness a thing. That recent discovery should've been taught in every school and should've literally have science go back to the drawing board. Watch the documentaries I suggested. I believe man walked with dinosaurs. There's over whelming evidence to back that claim up not scientism which is a religion. You have to have faith that anything happened as they say! Something came from nothing?😂😂😂😂 The theory has already started with a lie unless a creator created it!

[@sabhishek9289]

The ERVS are not junk unlike what evolutionists would claim. Read this peer-reviewed science paper published on the journal of virology: Switching Sides: How Endogenous Retroviruses Protect Us from Viral Infections

[@deiluxx]

“Mountains of evidence” 😮okay

[@JimmyK53]

@deiluxx there is SO much evidence. The people who think there aren't have had the truth hidden from them by dishonest creationists. There is so much genetic evidence. We have tons of fossils of many hominid species including DNA sequencing of some of them. We have so much fossil evidence. Creationists push quote mining and straight up lie about and don't acknowledge most of the evidence. There is a reason why millions and millions of scientists across every field of study accept this as being well established. It's considered as substantiated as gravity and germ theory.

[@sabhishek9289]

There are no mountains of evidence.

[@scarab378]

If this were shown to me as a kid, I would not have had an atheist phase.

[@prussianguy4183]

You say that chemical evolution is impossible and it had to be "something else" then why dont you tell us what that "something else" is?

[@addersrinseandclean]

Thank you, keep up the good work

[@takenote8613]

Well done!

[@rebanelson607]

Thanks for telling the truth!

[@Waynesification]

The meteor must be Australian, it's got crocodile Dundee's hat on? Is that "professor" Dave I hear?

[@Waynesification]

Hmm, I keep getting likes shadow banned of all things. You notice likes not being registered. Dishonesty is a way of life for some people I suppose, who tell themselves they are the good people and are being good for children in a world of adults they are not being good towards, or for the children in error upon error, in self righteousness which is not righteous. Just waiting for Elon to take over.

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

I'm not too keen on the prebiotic chemistry stuff, so I have nothing much to say about it.... but I can spot a bad analogy and fallacy from a mile away. *Methodological Naturalism* doesn't preclude intelligent causation... it precludes *"Supernatural Causation"* , thus your entire analogy falls flat. You would have made a better analogy by saying that an investigator may assume the person was murdered by someone else, but is strongly reluctant to assume that they were killed by magic. That's how science and scientists work.

[@chiastics7361]

That's a fair criticism of the end of the video. You're correct that they pointed out a number of cases in prebiotic chemistry where people took the conclusion too far. But in wrapping up their conclusion, it leaves open the question of what the analogy to "murder" would really be in this case. How do you have intelligent causation without supernatural causation? My understanding is this is because intelligent design advocates don't really want to commit to a single model or history of design. There's not a single historical narrative in the same way that Darwinian evolution has a coherent narrative. Instead, it's an open ended question and observation of available evidence. If you read books like "The Design Inference" and "Edge of Evolution" they give you tools for determining when something is intelligently caused and when it's not. It's possible to determine what could be caused by evolution. But you don't get a story and certainly not supernatural causation or a timeline. Maybe that makes their approach more humbly scientific than either the evolutionists or the creationists.

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@chiastics7361 Easy... if the intelligent agency is natural.

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@chiastics7361 not sure of *"Design Inference"* but *"Edge of Evolution"* certainly does not show how to detect Design in nature.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

"Easy..." lol 👍

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@LongStoryShortVideos What's the joke? You're acting like an intelligent agency can exist in any other way than natural. It must be physical to manipulate matter, it must be physical to process and store information. If you're physical then you must be subject to laws of physics.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

Love the content (and also the technical footnotes which I stop to read).

[@tiffanymagee2700]

As always, best scientific commentary anywhere!!

[@wispfire2545]

Penguins can't be left handed, they don't even have hands...

[@hrithikmathur7441]

Awesome video 🔥

[@problemsolver3254]

are you a bot. if not this is god propaganda

[@ethanrichard4950]

Thank you so much. This was a great vid!

[@giarc0]

This is almost exactly how the Great Nerd Wars of 1893 began…….

[@Eric-mc6hn]

I can't believe I'm just now discovering this 😎

[@atmanbrahman1872]

Excellent video. Not only informative but entertaining.

[@raspberryflash583]

The channel in a nutshell

[@treelore7266]

yaaaaaaaaaaaay new vid!!! 🥰

[@nsp74]

please make more videos like this

[@mcmanustony]

Why not try learning science from actual scientists rather than from lying religious activists like this? This is creationist rubbish.

[@doinalechanu6092]

I must have went to the Store????😮

[@Enturbulant]

😂 all of this to get to god of the gaps

[@Enturbulant]

@@christsavesreadromans1096 Tell him to go pick up his Nobel Prize then. Oh, and yes that is exactly what was is in that video.

[@Enturbulant]

@@christsavesreadromans1096 I watched this like a year ago. I have absolutely no interest in watching it again or to have a debate with someone that wants to argue in bad faith on youtube.

[@Enturbulant]

@@christsavesreadromans1096 I responded to you our of courtesy. Spin it however you'd like. I simply have no desire to argue with a troll on youtube. Go cry about it.

[@christsavesreadromans1096]

@@Enturbulant Repent and believe the gospel while you have the chance.

[@Enturbulant]

@@christsavesreadromans1096 wait wait wait. You responded to my comment trying to get me to debate you. I tell you I'm not interested. Arguing on youtube is foolish and a waste of time. You didn't like that so you try to mock and in insult my intelligence to goad me into doing something I told you I had no interest in doing...then you try to witness to me?? Work on your approach and respect when someone says no to you.

[@LogosInstituut]

Thank you so much for this video

[@allrequiredfields]

Dude said "expecially" 😐

[@Travisharger]

When investigating a death, would you also seriously include the possibility that a ghost did it? Or nah?

[@jimhughes1070]

Absolutely award-winning presentation!! 💪🙏😍🎉🎉

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

🌮

[@NaturalismFlops]

Ty for your science videos & breaking it down for easy understanding. Love your animations!⛄️

[@JessicaSunlight]

SNOW MAN!!! ☃

[@NaturalismFlops]

@@JessicaSunlight ☃️

[@JessicaSunlight]

@@NaturalismFlops ☺♥

[@andycheng9811]

If "natural causes" is too narrow-minded (and "other ideas" outside of natural causes are even entertained), then conversation is over. By the way, in the murder analogy, "someone did it" is also a natural cause: some human, animal, or disease, which exists in "nature", could have caused the death through some "natural way". Just because the cause of something isn't readily explained through ways of nature, it doesn't necessitate a SUPERnatural cause -- that's wishful thinking. Just because a cookie's whereabout is unknown, one wouldn't automatically assume that a cookie demon has caused the cookie to dematerialize through some spell; instead, the first thought usually would lean towards the more "natural" cause, like some sugar-loving kid living under the same roof couldn't resist the temptation. If anyone wants to believe in god, go ahead and believe. I would think that your faith shouldn't require any need to debunk science.

[@magshdz]

My life is a lie 😵‍💫

[@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda]

It's about time. I really dislike someone who uses word like "Smart" while spreading misinformation/stupidity, they're insufferably ironic and cringy. Thanks a lot for the video.

[@HW-sw5gb]

If you don’t believe evolution is real you’re the stupid one. Same with if you don’t believe abiogenesis is possible

[@bivvystridents3752]

Yet you're literally praising misinformation. Try to be "smarter".

[@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda]

@@bivvystridents3752 Let the proofs & references talk, not your own mouth

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda The proof and references say that 99% of scientists believe abiogenesis is possible & saying it isn’t has as much respect as being a flat earther lol. They say this because we’ve made significant progress in building basic structures these past few years & saying we won’t figure it out is like saying “humans will never build a flying machine” in 1870

[@kevinlawrence1582]

@@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda dude please tell me you're not really falling for this b******* propaganda.🤣🤣🤣 There is a mountain of evidence is piling up and it's not in favor of this guy.

[@HW-sw5gb]

We’ve already recreated primordial environments and seen that it produces all amino acids, produces proto-cells, and even naturally produces cell membranes. The only human intervention is getting the starting conditions rights. All these developments occur through chemical reactions on all their own. Eventually we’ll find the exact set of conditions that resulted in the first cell on Earth. We say this not out of blind hope, but because we have made progress to doing so already (which this video conspicuously just doesn’t ever mention lol). Saying that we won’t is like saying “the Higgs Boson isn’t real” in 1975

[@zuzabarbuscakova2924]

.... its so sad to see all those comments here ... they literally take this video as a reliable source. They are using science (internet, phones ...) to disparage science. Its insane. .... and sad. Very sad.

[@sbgtrading]

Dang...this video is art AND science...love it. Thank you again LSS! "Single and ready to minge...already got a honey" Good science communicated perfectly

[@jamesbugbee9026]

I like how N extreme offsetting of his piehole makes him look protozoic That detective would B utterly unaffected by his/her error

[@popularmisconception1]

The only question is WHO threw that rock into those Chelyabinsk houses... it could not have thrown itself.

[@DragonFire360Media]

Thanks!

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for the support 🏆

[@POWWOWMIK]

Who are you attacking here? I've never heard a single scientist claim to know the origin of life.

[@richardevans6529]

The Discovery video says who it is creating, 3 popular science videos. One of them is from PBS. They include exact quotes in the Discovery video.

[@POWWOWMIK]

@@richardevans6529 but the video implies that science in general is behind some sort of collective deceit, when in fact its just some bad videos, which are likely simplified for kids anyway. KZbin is full of Nick Lane lectures; why don't they attack his opinions? Because he has no dogma and constantly states that, like all us, he can't explain the origin of life. Like James Tour, this video just seems to be a long-winded and strangely angry way of saying 'i don't know and they don't know'; yet no one claims to know. And not knowing does not make God any more of a likely hypothesis; in case that's the underlying implication.

[@adrianthom2073]

@@richardevans6529 , Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It is considered the best hypothesis for how life stated and has lots of evidence for it. But it also has many issues, and this channel does a good job at explaining those issues. The only issue I have with this channel is that it concludes that because Abiogenesis or any other natural explanation for life has not yet been proven, the alternative answer is ID (aka God). Yet god has no evidence, just assertions.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@POWWOWMIK you clearly haven't been paying attention to this discussion. There are many people that have made the claims that there is only a natural cause, and it was implied in both of the videos critiqued in this response. They used several key statements that exclude alternatives from the outset, and every proposal assumes naturalism. That was in the video in case you didn't watch it.

[@POWWOWMIK]

@@pigzcanfly444 no, you haven't been paying attention. Claiming there's a natural cause while not being able to explain the process has the same status as you claiming an unnatural cause and not being able to explain the process; which is exactly where you're at. Like I said: i've not heard anyone claim to know how life started. Nick Lane - who is obsessed with the subject - simply admits that he doesn't know. Like all Deists, you're hoping that this gap in knowledge somehow proves God. It might do yet; but for sure it won't be the God that you have in mind. And in any case - what do you desire; that all research on the subject stops? Why; to prove that a disinterested God designed a cell a few billion years ago? Why do you want that to be true so badly?

[@furnaceheadgames9001]

12:20 I've thought of 2 more: 1: quantum tunnelling ) 2: divine interference (needs an explanation for why))

[@glenliesegang233]

No why needed.

[@kurtmiller8773]

Then how did we get here ????

[@nailertn82]

"It's easy to say things that aren't true and get people to believe in them, especially when they sound sciency and are mixed in with well known facts." And you know all about it. A creationism channel in all but name trying to distract with cute animations, replacing the dry scientific rigour required to debunk papers it claims to with silly jokes, half-truths and hand waving.

[@houstandy1009]

In that case why not point out the statements that are not true, point out the half truths and the handwavium. I'm not religious, I'm not into creationism, I can't find a lot wrong with what's said. It's obviously dumbed-down to reach a wider audience so people other than cellular biologists and organic chemists can understand it, but I don't see the lies you do, why not point them out.

[@fynflorentine2512]

You can attack bad science without supporting the other side, you know

[@shazibjehangir]

Based and redpilled creationism. I hope your channel grows exponentially!

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for the taco money! Will turn it into more videos 💪

[@shazibjehangir]

@@LongStoryShortVideos Canadian money is more like monopoly money but I hope you do haha!

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

@@shazibjehangir 🤣

[@pigzcanfly444]

Unfortunately the US is no longer the world economic standsrd either. It's a tragedy but His will be done.

[@camay2345]

Someday scientists will make life in the lab, and then they will realize that life has creator(s)

[@michaelkurak1012]

What do you make of Michael Levin and his “Picasso tadpoles”? Check out the video “Why evolution is the Picasso of science”.

[@roberttormey4312]

Thanks for this channel and thanks much for putting the footnotes up front.

[@KlavierKannNichtMehr]

The problem with the philosophy of intelligent design is that it must involve intention by the designer. This is problematic in that the „designer“ must have some idea of where the design is going. However, evolution shows that organisms fail and die out, including their DNA. So we now go to a designer who can foresee all this and envision where his/her/its design evolves to. So why?

[@synthtonic4954]

If that's an honest question ... think about it. The short answer is 'love'. Intentionally designing beings that love you. At least as a main reason. How to do that though? How would you design beings that actually love you and choose you without creating robotic slaves that would have to do it (which is an oxymoron)? A logical thing to do would probably be, to give them free will as a foundation to be even able to choose you. And also to design a testing ground where you throw them in. To check, which of these beings do choose you, even when things are not so pleasant. Maybe also test them by various things like presenting other attractive (but not lasting) options to them, to see who would rather choose the alternatives instead of you. And in the end, you basically let those, who really do love you, come back to be with you. And being fair, you even provide for those, who did not choose you at first, but at some point realize that this was a mistake and now honestly want to love you, a free chance to do so and join. It's obviously much more complex than this, but if you want to have an idea, that's probably a start.

[@us3rG]

We can reason. That didn't just come out of nowhere

[@JILOA]

I believe the big bang theory. God spoke and 'bang' there it is!

[@therick363]

At least you admit the Big Bang happened. That’s a start

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

Complaining about half truths while making a video filled with YOUR half truths is just tad dishonest. So are you Young Earth Creationist or just a free lancer for the Discovery Institute.

[@robstadler927]

It might help your cause if you could add some specifics to back your claim that this video is filled with half-truths.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@robstadler927 It would help the purely religious cause if they did not use half truths. Real science is done with packaged chemical because that is how you can be sure the results were not due to contamination yet the video pretends is cheating. Its not, its real science.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@robstadler927 The video lied about the Miller-Urey experiment that used what was thought to be at the time the components of the Earth's atmosphere at that time as if its made up nonsense. Also there was a lot of amino acids not vey little. The amino acids did not have to be the same as we see life using today. The tar included lot of amino acids.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@robstadler927 The video is nothing but Discovery Institute anti-science propaganda masquerading as real science.

[@robstadler927]

@@ethelredhardrede1838 At 2:40 in the Long Story Short video, the Be Smart video is quoted, stating: “Miller’s experiment took some simple chemicals like those found on early earth.” The Be Smart video was released in 2018. In the 66 years between the Miller Urey experiment and the Be Smart video, nearly everyone agreed that Miller and Urey used the wrong chemicals - they were not like those found on early earth. The Long Story Short video is saying that Be Smart should have known better than to propagate this error. And now, you want to amplify the errors by claiming that Long Story short is using half-truths. Ugh.

[@0Vanguard0]

misinformation lead to the country we have today lol

[@CesarClouds]

0:12 That's exactly what you did in your video titled "Darwin's Biggest Problem". I debunked it in the comments section. Shame on you.

[@giustobuffo]

What IS the alternative if not from a naturally occurring (albeit extraordinarily rare, hence the rarity of life) chemical process?

[@qaahzi]

Creationism, perhaps?

[@truth.speaker]

All explanations must be considered When I see design, I know a designer made it But what is design? I would say intelligently ordered things indicate design. Because intelligently ordered systems have always and will always need a designer All things must come from somewhere. So we know our universe had to come from an energy source. And the source has to be intelligent to put it together so elegantly. We couldn't have come from nowhere

[@spatrk6634]

@@truth.speaker formation of ice crystals is orderly designed. each unique, and it doesnt have intelligent designer.

[@truth.speaker]

@@spatrk6634 well, again I have to question who made water? Who gave it those properties? It didn't just appear from nowhere. All explanations must be considered if our goal is truth

[@spatrk6634]

@@truth.speaker By asking "who" made water, you are presupposing that someone made it. Water, a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, is commonly made through a chemical reaction known as combustion. In this process, hydrogen gas (H2) is burned in the presence of oxygen gas (O2) to produce water vapor (H2O) and energy in the form of heat: 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O + energy Water can also be produced through other chemical reactions, such as the reaction between certain metals and acids or the reaction between certain alkali metals and water. Additionally, water is constantly being formed through natural processes such as the hydrological cycle, which involves the evaporation of water from bodies of water, the condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere to form clouds, and the precipitation of water back to the Earth's surface. What gives water its properties is based on how water molecule is structured and intermolecular forces between them.

[@ccoolequideow]

Omg your channel is INCREDIBLE!!!! I think people who watch those channels and enjoy it would LOVE your channel!! You have found a gigantic audience where you are a special one among the creators, so you will grow FOR SURE!! Good luck!

[@caryfrancis7412]

Well, its actually religious BS.

[@BK-hq7tn]

@@caryfrancis7412 so you just say “bs” and couldn’t give one thing wrong with it? This video at least made arguments you on the other hand just ridiculed with not a single point made. Which logically, rationally, and academically speaking makes you full of bs. This video might be wrong, but it’s more logical than you, and that should scare you.

[@caryfrancis7412]

@@BK-hq7tn Since you cant tell, this is funded bya rligious organization that is putting their religion , above science. Much of what they are saying, are lies or misrepresentation of fact. I can refute the points made, and it isnt hard, but there are so many, where to start ? This is not logical, rational or academic. I cant fugure out what group funds this, can you ? Because why would they hide UNLESS this is BS and they know it is ?

[@mrnobodytheuser2950]

@@caryfrancis7412 Go on start refuting, Do it in the name of science

[@michaelhamm8430]

Okay, let’s say that life didn’t come about naturally. Where is your evidence for that? And remember absence of evidence for another theory doesn’t prove yours. Where is the scientific proof it didn’t come about naturally.

[@tosuchino6465]

So what are "other" ideas? "God did it", is it?

[@mrnobodytheuser2950]

So what if it is? Is not science about asking questions?

[@tosuchino6465]

@@mrnobodytheuser2950 Sure. But asking questions is just part of science. Searching for answers is the fun part. "God did it" is an unverified claim. There would be a lot of work to be done if "God did it" was to be a scietific idea.

[@musaaziri3568]

if abiogenesis can be justified by objective data, then fine. But saying that abiogenesis must be true ( without justification ) simply because it is the only naturalistic explanation available, is fallacious. As I sayd, if abiogenesis can be justified, then ok, it would be an objective fact. But some just so stories are not justifications.

[@tosuchino6465]

@@musaaziri3568 Agreed. Thus, the same "logic" needs to be applied to the "God did it" claim as well. If/when abiogenesis is verified by objective data, we will understand how exactly it happens. If the "God did it" claim was verified, we should be able to undersand what exacty "god" is and how exactly he did it.

[@charliegranberry2594]

Great video!

[@houstandy1009]

The problem I have with origin of life science is I'm not even sure if it's science. Usually in science you come up with a hypothesis then rigorously test your hypothesis accepting the evidence no matter if it supports your hypothesis or not. When it comes to origin of life science it seems that they have a hypothesis, take it as a fact that the hypothesis is right, ignore all evidence that points away from their theory, over exaggerate the evidence that points toward their theory and work on the assumption that anything that appears implausible is simply because we haven't worked it out yet. The field seems to engage in a extreme form of bias that is not seen in any other field. I'm not religious by the way I just think the evidence to support abiogenesis is really poor, I don't get how its pretty much sold as fact. Just as a thought exercise: Lets say science new these two things as indisputable fact: 1: There is a being called God that travels round the universe creating designer life on planets of his choosing. 2: The force of nature is also cable of creating a form of life on planets when the conditions are right. Science asks the question, is the life we find on earth the result of Gods creations or Natures creations. I think any honest person looking at the evidence would conclude that the complexity in the life on this planet and the extraordinary number of things that would need to come together for it to happen would point to this being one of God's planets not natures. That's not a claim from myself that God created life only that if God or nature creating life on this planet were equally likely then the evidence would point to God not nature. (I'm also not claiming God and nature are equally likely by the way) What we have here though is a extreme form of bias in which science has reached a conclusion without any evidence, it has ruled out all other possibilities at the start of the research, it has decided there can be no God, that aliens didn't do it and that there are no other possibilities. If you decide at the start that everything outside of your hypothesis is wrong then all roads must lead to your hypothesis being right. This doesn't seem like good science to me.

[@fishtheman]

If I may ask, what is keeping you from becoming a believer? To me, it’s clear that there is God. Everything is literally pointing out to Him.

[@houstandy1009]

@@fishtheman I’m just not religious, I would probably fit in the agnostic bracket.

[@blockhead1899]

@@houstandy1009 I understand your like no one really knows how it started and you are skeptical at how confidently these hypothesis are put out there

[@houstandy1009]

@@blockhead1899 you understand correctly. I think at present we have no idea how life began. Religious people believe it’s god and their belief is faith. Atheists believe nature did it and their belief is faith.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@houstandy1009 You do not understand origin-of-life research, and you assume that it is based on faith. I recommend that you peruse scientific journals before letting creationists mislead you.

[@kemicalhazard8770]

How exactly are scientist who “keep an open mind” supposed to find evidence for, let alone prove, that your god or whatever supernatural thing went down, actually started life?

[@britzius3264]

Danke!

[@twbascom]

Amazing work! Thanks for putting this together and following the science and evidence.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

They did no such thing. They dealt with pop science videos and flat out lied and engaged in half truths about the actual science. They flat out lied that the RNA hypothesis is dead.

[@HW-sw5gb]

We’ve already recreated primordial environments and seen that it produces all amino acids, produces proto-cells, and even naturally produces cell membranes. The only human intervention is getting the starting conditions rights. All these developments occur through chemical reactions on all their own. Eventually we’ll find the exact set of conditions that resulted in the first cell on Earth. We say this not out of blind hope, but because we have made progress to doing so already (which this video conspicuously just doesn’t ever mention lol). Saying that we won’t is like saying “the Higgs Boson isn’t real” in 1975

[@streetwisepioneers4470]

​@@HW-sw5gb I 💗 that. If the right conditions were considered to be LIKE... A MIND GENERATED FIELD! 🧠

[@gianlucazanga8432]

​​@@HW-sw5gbNo, we've, under unrealistically pure environments, created some aminoacids among other things, membranes that are not similar to cell membranes, as they're basically just a fat skin with no one of the function that a cell membrane would require to keep a cell alive and interact with the environment. As for the protocell you must be specific in what do you mean and the paper you're talking about. Protocells are just a magic word used to describe something that is not a cell, has no reproductive functions and has no metabolism (you know, like real cells) but hey, maybe it has the shape of a cell, and maybe it can grow so much that it can divide by itself so who's observing thinks it's like the duplication process of real cells even if it's not, by far. If you know of any experiment that under realistic starting conditions ends up with a cell capable of these functions without borrowing anything from other living organisms (that would be like saying you are going to be a millionaire on your own, and then you start stealing from who's a millionaire already) let me know, I'm curious. What we've made is just chemistry, and is relevant on the origin of life in the same way that an apple fallen from a tree is relevant to the making of an apple pie, yeah, kind of an intersection of subjects, but without a pastry chef, lots of other ingredients, a specific sequence and multiple changes of environments the apple is not gonna turn into an apple pie.

[@TheStarflight41]

Thank you for your service to humanity via the truth Long Story Short.

[@DiedraGoodwin]

I tend to stay away from secondary sources like the three you are critiquing here. If you are really interested in the origin of life you are better off to listen to the scientists who are actually doing the work. Nick Lane, Michael Russell, Bill Martin and Joseph Moran, for example all have some presence on KZbin. I guess you can already tell that I'm into the alkaline vent theory, which is a new departure in origin theory. You better get busy studying or you will be left behind.

[@paulnewcombe7183]

Not a single negative comment even attempts to debunk the content of the vid… that says it all… “It’s wrong because it’s just wrong!!!”

[@HW-sw5gb]

As for abiogenesis, it’s going to be extremely funny and sad for you the day we inevitably discover exactly how to reproduce it. We’ve already made significant progress

[@popularmisconception1]

Actually, from his point of view that might only prove that it indeed could have been a result of intelligent design :D

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@popularmisconception1 You’re 100% right it should. But sadly I don’t think he accepts the standard Catholic + mainline Protestant doctrine on science if he’s so desperate to disprove it+evolution lol :/ The person who first theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. Intelligent design and real science are completely compatible. It means accepting Genesis as a metaphor, but in exchange you should be excited to get to see the real way God created the universe.

[@jonathanb858]

Notice you said “ the day we inevitably discover “ you are doing exactly what this video talks about. It hasn’t happened yet and no amount of hoping it will can be considered evidence or fact.

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@jonathanb858 What this video doesn’t do is tell you the undeniable fact we have made significant progress in recreating the chemistry of simple life forms in a lab for the past decade. We’ve even managed to 3D print DNA and living cells. What this video is doing is the equivalent of saying “humans will never invent a flying machine” in 1850 or “humans will never find the Highs Boson” in 1980. If 99% of scientists in all related fields agree something exists and is possible, you are being purposefully illogical and obtuse to argue it doesn’t. It should be reserved as a neat “what if?” scenario at most, and only actually explored if after decades at the advanced technological level where it should be obvious- it still isn’t found.

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@jonathanb858 Also this channel doesn’t actually care either way, because there is more than enough evidence for evolution (and specific branches they argue, like the evolution of whales), but they still make videos acting like it’s a contested issue anyways. It’s unironically no different than making a video showing all the (100% correct) “gaps” in the Higgs Boson theory in 2023. None of those gaps overwhelm the insane amount of evidence supporting it, including a clear and recorded detection of the phenomenon itself .

[@michaelwmauser1]

I enjoyed the video (well done) and IMO the criticism was appropriate, but viewers should keep in mind that the criticism was mostly directed at the way two KZbin videos discussed abiogenesis, not the actual research being done. I say "mostly" because the video goes on to criticize the concept of Methodological Naturalism which only considers "natural causes" (11:30). I assume the alternative would be "supernatural causes" and that the evidence we have for supernatural causes is that we don't yet have really good explanations using natural causes. They use the idea of a detective just saying "it had to be natural causes that caused the death" while ignoring evidence of a break-in and a murder, but this is a very poor analogy because break-ins and murders are not supernatural events. Maybe the video authors can give an example of a murder we solved by evoking the supernatural?

[@Pyr0Ben]

I think you're misguided when you say that any evidence for a supernatural cause is in reality merely a lack of a probable natural cause. The problem is, it's not that we don't have a good naturalistic explanation **yet**, it's that we KNOW that there ISN'T a naturalistic explanation, and a supernatural one fits the evidence much, much better. His analogy is perfect, and you demonstrate it. You hand-wave away any possibility of the supernatural on the grounds that you don't currently have a way to explain something that fits your preferred paradigm.

[@michaelwmauser1]

@@Pyr0Ben Thank you for your comments. I agree that we don't have a "good" naturalistic explanation and may never have one, but I don't agree that "we KNOW that there ISN'T one" that we may find someday. I agree that a supernatural explanation can fit the evidence, including bite marks on a dead body, but supernatural explanations have no predictive value. In my religious upbringing, it was up to me to believe that God may have made every living thing individually, He may have made the first living thing, or He may have only made the subatomic particles that follow certain divinable rules that resulted in everything else.

[@mcmanustony]

@@Pyr0Benwho told you a natural explanation is not possible? See if you can get a refund

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@mcmanustony buddy if you can find one i wanna be the first to know

[@mcmanustony]

@@Pyr0Ben there is at present no comprehensive theory of life’s origins. Many steps are understood, some are not. You bluntly state that such an explanation is NOT POSSIBLE. This would oblige you to show conclusively which step is only explicable by means of an appeal to the supernatural. You’ve not done this Because you can’t .