No. I did not. I “wonder[ed]” as to “what level of familiarity” you have “with the underlying science”, and commented about “apologists, often with little or no scientific expertise, making grandiose claims about what the “scientific evidence” leads to.”
Nobody, be they plumbers or neurosurgeons, need “personal qualifications” in order to merely discuss science.
But you weren’t “discussing” science, your OP dumped a veritable Gish Gallop of unsubstantiated and often controversial claims about science on our laps.
You were talking at us, not talking with us.
You mean like the claim that BGV “proves that any universe expanding on average—like ours—must have a beginning”? See my first post.
I can see a number of potential reasons for that:
-
Leading with the AI aspect probably put people off. People tend to be disinclined to spend time replying to a post generated by an LLM.
-
Your OP was a wide-roving Gish Gallop, lacking any substantiation, let alone citations. This would tend to evoke skeptical standoffishness rather than detailed engagement.
-
Your claims overlap considerably with WLC’s KCA – which has already been debated repeatedly on this forum (most recently here), reducing the appetite for a rehash.
-
This forum tends to have more biologists than theoretical physicists, reducing the level of engagement on the latter topic.
And I’ve seen enough bad science in apologetics over the years to be completely unmoved by this.
And “I consider” you to be mistaken in this view. You exhibit little concern about the wider “foundations, methods, and implications of science”, but rather on the narrow focus of finding what science can be cherry-picked to get to the only answer that apologists are ever seem interested in: that “Goddidit”. If it is not purported “Scientific Evidence for a Creator”, you would appear to have no interest in it. The fact that the only scientific topic, other than Cosmology, that you bring up is Abiogenesis would appear to support this interpretation.
This would not disabuse us of the suspicion that your understanding of the science may be superficial, and your conclusions the product of motivated reasoning.
Summarised: you posted on an apologetics blog, and were asked to do a video based upon it on an apologetics Youtube channel.
None of that adds to your credibility – the internet is chock full of blogs, and Youtube is chock full of channels – many (most?) of which are terrible.
If somebody had genuinely “falsifie[d] the RNA World hypothesis”, I rather suspect that somebody on this forum would have noticed, and commented on the fact.
Given your use of the perjorative “Evolutionist”, I would suspect that your understanding of biology is as tainted by motivated reasoning as your understanding of cosmology.
On what topic do you intend to write? Nothing of your output that I’ve seen to date would appear to be within that field.