I see that an AIDS denialist has starting making video's that to me just look like personal attacks on C0nc0rdance, Which really doesn't surprise me. It's that one youtube user "mykoolaidtastesfunny" This person is one brick short of a full load. I dont think that making attack video's is cool or right in any way, And The person being attacked in the video should be told..
Absolutely, and of course saying that "smoking causes cancer" is a bit of an oversimplification, since smoking alone is not a sufficient cause. The proper term is component cause, as in a component of multiple events that lead to cancer progression.
@C0nc0rdance Component cause you say. Well I have not heard the english term before your comment. Still you are of course right. But to be true I almost never bother to explain the chain of effects for any given senario in a comment section. Otherwise This would be a full time job.
Besides I do not know all the details, but 2 of my family members are cancer specialists. And they can tell loads and loads about who is and Who Is´nt going to be treatet by them and for what.
@JRBendixen Almost needless to say, none of them or their coworkers are smokers. That should be just about enough of a reason not to start smoking for most people.
About the quote:"How are you JR?". Well things are fine, though my personal needs ect. has been downplayed at late. It´s not a bad thingy though, I´ve just been taking care of our daughter. Still things are looking very bright for all of us.
Thanks for asking and I presume you are doing just well :)
We actually moved the Doomsday Clock forward today, and one of the reasons is science-denial of superstitious bastards. We are facing fucking end of the world because of religious morons.
Your argument is perfectly logical, considering that you phrased it as a "better" option, rather than the "best" option. If anything, the concept of a global conspiracy among scientists is just too improbable. It's basically saying that 99% of people can be programmed to be dishonest and defend a lie which can only be exposed by a handful of con artists selling books.
Hey c0nc0rdance, i'm really stuck here. I guess it's wrong, but i read and have seen that AZT causes aids, or at least does not improve conditions. someone even showed me a paper on pubmed. I have no medical background. But I feel it's all part of aids denialism. this is the paper pubmed/7908356 can you enlighten me? is AZT harmful or helpful and where do i find evidence that i can trust?
AZT monotherapy isn't used in the US anymore. We use HAART now, which attacks multiple stages of the viral life cycle.
Was AZT effective and safe? Yes, according to dozens of double-blind randomized control trials. Here's one as an example:
AIDS. 1994 Mar;8(3):313-21.
"Zidovudine delayed progression to symptomatic HIV disease (P = 0.01); a trend in a delay in progression to CDC stage IV disease was observed (P = 0.08). Substantial toxicity was not observed."
"Zidovudine delayed progression of HIV disease and produced little toxicity in subjects with mildly symptomatic HIV disease and less than 500 CD4 T lymphocytes/mm3."
N Engl J Med. 1990 Apr 5;322(14):941-9.
"We conclude that zidovudine is safe and effective in persons with asymptomatic HIV infection and fewer than 500 CD4+ cells per cubic millimeter. "
These were all double blind placebo-controlled trials.
Lancet. 1994 Apr 9;343(8902):871-81. which concluded:
"there was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome between the two therapeutic policies."
was a comparison of treatment at diagnosis (the American model) and treatment at the onset of full-blown AIDS (the European model). Both groups received AZT therapy during the course of their disease... it was only a question of WHEN: immediately or deferred.
This was a significant discovery because it validated that maintaining a low viral load wasn't going to prevent or even much delay disease. The virus was replicating in areas where the therapy wasn't reaching, and the immune system was still being depleted. AIDS progressed whether the patients took antivirals or not.
If anything, these AZT naive people prove that AZT does NOT cause AIDS symptoms, since they weren't treated until their immune systems were compromised.
@C0nc0rdance It's even more frustrating to talk to aids denialists than to creationists. They even call you a liar and say you are paid to do so a "drug company whore" it's so pointless...
This tactic has a name: the "Pharma Shill Gambit". When confronted with opposition to a strongly held belief, we usually assume our opponents are incompetent. If they demonstrate obvious competence, then we assume they are malevolent.
By calling you a shill, they're actually complimenting you on your knowledge! They're saying you know your stuff, so the only way you can hold your "wrong" view is if you're a liar.
@C0nc0rdance Well I'm looking forward to your new project. C0nc0rdances Answers was it, right? Because there are almost an unlimited number of pseudoscience out there. And i just start to learn, I used to be on the crazy side too. Denialism of HIV/AIDS (thought evils scientists did it) and all crazy alien illuminati conspiracies. You are one of those who helped me to get in touch with reality again. thank you.
@hitcan79 yeah, i believed all kinds of crazy non sense. I was a hardcore conspiracy theorist. 911, moon landing, aliens, illuminati, aids, kennedy everything you can imagine. but then richard dawkins came along and QualiaSoup, as well as c0nc0rdance.
@mphello While there is a general agreement for AGW, it is not at the same level of scientific agreement as HIV/AIDS or Evolution. As while in HIV/AIDS or Evolution you have a 0.02% decent, AGW have a 3-5% decent. This still means there is a 95-97% agreement, but the decent is 150-250 times as large. This is not to say that I do not believe in AGW, but just that AGW does not share the same level as HIV/AIDS or Evolution.
neither is science. But casual intelligence design can at least be considered a valid opinion....it doesn't prompt people to let themselves be killed by a disease. AIDS denialism lives on the same crazy stupid people as creationists.
NOT EXACTLY: SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER IT ONLY GIVES YOU MORE CHANCE TO GET CANCER SO DOES HIV ==> THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE IMMUNE TO IT ( VERY RARE ) JUST THE SAME WITH MONONUCLEOSIS :-) DOES IT REALY MATTER ? DON'T WORRY BE HAPPY :-)
Number 1 and 3 certainly don't meet my criteria for strongly proven theories because they are not foundations for many other widely accepted bodies of knowledge nor would their omission require the rewriting of many other bodies of knowledge.
Number 2 is supported by many other theories and historical events. Nuclear power plants, Hiroshima, Astrophysics ( solar and stellar models ), particle and nuclear physics theories, not to mention many subtle nuances in physical chemistry theories.
Let me give a short lesson about proof. It's not about how much direct evidence there is to support some theory, but rather how intermeshed that theory is with other well accepted theories. History establishes this concept very well. For example, it was very difficult for physicists to accept the theory of special relativity at first because it overturned the foundation of all classical physics. It is very rare for such a solid theory to be overturned.
Is it not true Concordance that you deny the accepted scientific view that all quantum mechanical models are stochastic when it comes to the debate on Free Will? Is this not Selective Acceptance? How can anyone really criticize another for Selective Acceptance and be so arrogant as to ascertain that they have no Selective Acceptance? Food for thought, no???
It's very disturbing, how many people actually believe that the entire scientific community is run by a huge world wide conspiracy. Don't you people think a few of these scientists might have enough respect for the truth, to say something about it???
@Meansofviewing BZZZZZT!!! Wrong answer. It's really easy to tell when a subject is science, and when it's not. Is it based on evidence? Has the evidence been debated and peer reviewed? If the answer is yes, it's science. Whatever the final outcome is. All four questions are solidly understood by scientists. All four questions can be answered in the affirmative.
@Meansofviewing Ah, I missed your point. Though technically, the "aquatic ape" theory, was science. It's just science that didn't pan out when the evidence was examined. It was a valid theory and it was examined properly. It was just wrong. Or at least it's wrong according to all available evidence to date. Too bad, I really liked the theory when it was proposed.
So just because 99.98% of scientists say A is true and only 0.02% say B is true, it HAS to be A? Otherwise you're using selective acceptance?
Hmm..
But what if 99.98% of the scientists only exist because they are funded by powerfull people who us to believe that A is true and not B? While only 0.02% of the scientists are funded by people who realy care for the truth?
I think the maker of this video himSELF is using selective acceptance...
@CCLJunky First, the video (and description box) state "Knowing what is real and what is unsupported by evidence is a daunting task, but when 99.95% of scientists hold that the evidence supports one theory over another, it's a safe bet for the layman that the minor viewpoint hasn't met the burden of proof."
Second, if you really think there's a conspiracy then you will easily be able to discover the truth yourself. Even retarded goldfish can perfectly follow the scientific method.
@onijester56 First, the scientific establishment these days is fucked up beyond repair. Corruption is the norm and research is determined by money and not by science or the quest for knowledge anymore. So if 99.95% of the "scientists" support a particular claim, it's mainly because they HAVE to, otherwise they won't be able to fund their own research. A perfect example of that is the recent climategate scandal. Science = Politics = Money.
I don't think you have any idea how research funding works. It's very easy to disparage an entire field of human activity if you don't have to support your claims with any factual evidence.
Why don't you do some research on R01 NIH grants, and come back and tell us who determines which applications are funded. Is it a political appointee? An administrator?
@C0nc0rdance I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you buddy, because that's wasted energy. If you wanna believe that the scientific community is ALWAYS telling you the truth, just because the majority of them says so, then fine. Be that naive. I can't becasue i've seen enough examples of the perverted corruption inside the scientific establishment.
@CCLJunky "I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you buddy, because that's wasted energy." So it's wasted energy to defend your declarations of a conspiracy or to actually do the simplest of research yet not so to proclaim something you have no knowledge about is not?
"the scientific community is ALWAYS telling you the truth" This is not the claim we are making.
"just because the majority of them says so, then fine" The majority says where the evidence tends to point.
"i've seen enough examples of the perverted corruption inside the scientific establishment."
Then do your own fucking research. Go to a random island and catalog the wildlife there for biology. Examine the geographic formations of the island. Dig for fossils there. Etc.
The results of deceit in science upon one's reputation hinders deceit among scientists. Also, "frauds" IN SCIENCE are revealed as such BY SCIENCE before they are ever accepted AS SCIENCE. (Fyi, because of the method.)
Fuck "the method". That's what i'm saying, the method is corrupted. It doesn't work anymore! Money is now the method.
Every scientist who wants to research subjects that are not wanted in the establishment, will have a very hard time to get funds. And when they do get their research funded, their works is simply being excluded from "the method" called peer review, because not a single peer outlet will publish their work.
@CCLJunky Science is nothing more than bussiness these days. For example. Just look at climate science. Before they started this worldwide hoax about manmade CO2 warming up the planet, research into this field was just a couple of million per year. But these days, it's multiple Billions a year. And once they got their carbon tax, it's TRIllions a year.
You wouldn't get funds for researching common dirt, but if you said you wanted to see what impact it has on the climate then sure, no problem.
@CCLJunky And that's a very VERY dangerous setting. Because once polictics decides which research is is being doen and which is being surpressed, then there's realy no limit to what dictators can shove down our throats for scientific truth.
Just look at the time when everyone KNEW that the earth was flat and everyone who researched other possibilities, was either burned at the stake or was driven into exile.
[the method is corrupted. It doesn't work anymore! Money is now the method.] Then you don't understand what the scientific method is. It's been the same for over 500 years: Observe. Question. Hypothesize. Test. Conclude. Repeat.
"Every scientist who wants to research subjects that are not wanted in the establishment, will have a very hard time to get funds" Then you haven't been in a college-level lab for ANY 'school' of science.
@CCLJunky You make a claim derailing something you don't show any knowledge of. Either you provide evidence to support your claims or you don't complain when people call you on your bullshit. Elementary-school logic that even "braindamaged american teenage punks" have figured out.
"You have no knowledge about my knowledge" Then prove me wrong. So far you have failed to understand the simple, so (until YOU PROVE OTHERWISE) you demonstrate that the less-simple stuff you don't know shit about.
@onijester56 I'm not complaining, i'm just expressing my opinion. Which i have based on personal experience and 2nd hand experiences of many many other people. However, i can't prove anything i have said, not on an internet forum like this. If you want to know if any of it holds any truth, you'd have to listen and talk to the same people as i did.
You can't make a horse drink. Too bad your elementary-school level intelligence hasn't figured that one out yet.
@CCLJunky "However, i can't prove anything i have said, not on an internet forum like this." Present one source. All you have to do. One article that unquestionably proves your point while showing an understanding of the scientific method.
"If you want to know if any of it holds any truth, you'd have to listen and talk to the same people as i did." You fail to mention names or credentials, leaving your sources unable to be talked to.
"You can't make a horse drink." I actually have. :P
@onijester56 Hahaha. You are hilarious. You realy think i'm gonna invest time and effort into looking up the information you're asking for?! For what? For you? To try and prove something to you, a stranger on the internet? LOL!
Nah. I'm perfectly happy with the idea of you thinking that i'm blowing this all out of my ass and that i don't know shit :)
With all due respect buddy, but i realy dont give a flying fuck about your opinion about me. So.. No offense.
@CCLJunky "You realy think i'm gonna invest time and effort into looking up the information you're asking for?!" No evidence for your claims equates your claims to nothing.
Ergo your refusal of even the tiniest bit of evidence shows your claims as invalid. And your repeated demonstrations of ignorance don't help your case, either.
["we"? lol. I guess the herd mentallity realy is very important at your age.] Let's ignore that you fail to even question your beliefs which conflict with the reality THAT YOU BELIEVE GOD MADE.
Both me AND the video-author responded to you. In fact stating NOTHING of absolute/dogmatic adherence. Yet you REPEATEDLY make a claim that NEITHER OF US HAS MADE.
Ergo, the words are right: We (me and the author) did not say what you claim we said.
"No, the majority listens to a selected few within that majority and then they regurgitate what they say." Then you should have absolutely no problem PROVING THAT THERE IS SUCH A CONSPIRACY.
You should be more than 100% capable of showing that the Ptolemaic cosmological system is valid. And that all matter is made up of 4-5 elements (earth, air, fire, water). And that all life is created to be subservient to mankind. And that diseases are caused by imbalances in the properties of the soul.
@onijester56 Typical how polarised your thinking is. It's either black or white in your mind, isn't it. I can't prove it on YouTube so it's not true.
You're patheticly naive friend but i can't blame you, you're only 19 years old. I can only hope that once you've reached my age, your own experience will have proven me right.
@CCLJunky "It's either black or white in your mind, isn't it." You don't provide ANY SOURCE AT ALL FOR YOUR CLAIMS. Not even a name of ONE of your contacts. Yet you expect everyone to bow down to you and kiss your feet for being a champion of truth.
Here's a hint: Extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence. And your claim is one of the most because it dismisses the ONLY method able to prove it.
"your own experience will have proven me right. " Since I'll be funding my own research, :P
@CCLJunky "You just keep regurgitating the same braindead line." It was YOU who responded to a claim that WAS NOT MADE TO BEGIN WITH. And then you spun that strawman into a claim of a conspiracy.
You refuse to support your claim with even the smallest scrap of anything. And as you refuse to support your claim, you demonstrate ignorance of what you discuss.
And yet asking you to prove yourself while revealing to you the reality that you ignore is "regurgitating the same braindead line"?
And also you should have no problem showing that lifeforms from a planet several hundred thousand lightyears away taught early man basic architectural aspects.
And that's just a select list of some "minorities" in science. Not even mentioning that the same method that completely disproves most of them and casts more-than-reasonable doubt on the other ones is the same method that led to the functioning of the computer and the connection to the internet you have.
Love it. I've been having similar thoughts regarding the public debate regarding evolution (as opposed to the scientific debate, which does not exist), and I couldn't have found a better term for it than selective acceptance. Now, could somebody explain to me why anyone with the level of irrationality required to take creationism slightly seriously is allowed to run for any public office at any level?
Is it a fact, that people with autoimmune diseases test positive when tested for HIV. If so, what if i have Rheumatoid arthritis and treated for HIV instead of RA? Are there cases of people who suffer from an autoimmune disease who are misdiagnosed and treated for HIV instead?
@seektherapy70 HIV causes the oposite effect of an Autoimmune Disease. AD's cause the bodys immune system to over act and attack parts of the body. The HIV virus causes AIDS (Autoimmune Deficiency Syndrome) because the virus procreates by attacking and replicating withing the bodys white blood cells, leaving the immune system undercapable. Hope this helps :)
I don't even understand why these conversations are necessary any more. Isn't man sufficiently mature enough to no longer have to believe in the boogeyman?
My sister's boyfriend believe that avian flu, and the latest swine flu are genetically modified strain of bac, that was purposefully spread to 3rd world country (china and mexico), so that the pharmaceutical company can make lots of money by selling the pre-made tamiflu...
I hope my sister doesnt marry him because I wont be able to resist ridiculing him in every family union...
Basically. The author of this video shows he has absolutely no knowledge of scientific epistemology. Unfortunately, this is very common amongst scientists with mediocre training
Basic science states, you can NEVER proof anything, you can only disprove hypotheses. So absolutely nothing in science is certain and all should be questioned.
@ArmagedonV01 the point is not that people should accept these statements on authority, it's that the deniers of those statements do so without any good cause what so ever. The evidence is there, the equations have been proven, the work has been done, and human knowledge and technology have advanced based on these achievements. and yet people still deny them without a shred of counter evidence. that's the point of the video.
The 4 statements you provided as examples are all commonly accepted as fact, and I agree with all 4, but I do not believe your argument to be completely valid. Just because a person (or in this case a group of people) is right about one thing does not automatically make them right about another.
first of all, there is evidence for # 1-3. testable, repeatable data. you can't test evolution unless you can live for thousands of years. many experts oppose evolution (more than 0.00005%). you are comparing apples to oranges. there are some scientists who say HIV doesnt cause aids, but they believe in evolution. there are some who believe in neither and others who believe in both.
is it unreasonable for us to demand evidence? y should we accept an idea just cause a "smart" person said 2
There are 258,486 scientific articles on "evolution" indexed in Medline. 207,266 articles on "HIV". "cancer smoking" produces 30,800 hits.
They each contain new evidence, or reviews of past evidence. How many would you say you have read? I have a PhD and 10 years in research, and I haven't read 1% of all the papers in my own field of virology. How shall the average layperson distinguish among the many voices, each with equal access to media like the Internet?
Well considering there is plenty of evidence for certain animals evolving in our lifespan and recorded history, there is testable proof for evolution.
unfortunately, there is not. there is plenty of micro-evolution, natural selection, but there isn't such a thing as "positive" mutation, where an organisms genome gains new information.
This is a boring creationist canard, and it's CB102 on the talkorigins FAQ. Google it, then go look up definitions of information. Shannon entropy should be high on your list.
I've made a video to identify where we disagree. Go figure where we differ on the mechanisms of biological variation and post a comment there.
@DRealfriknKeenan dou even know what "positive" mutation is? How about mutation in general? Why do you accept evolution then deny it by saying "micro"? Why couldn't animals ALWAYS evolve, especially since we both can accept it they are doing it now? Do you even know how genome got information in the first place, you know, how it "gained" information to begin with? What do you know, really?
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except the time you take to look at them. Macro=micro x long period of time. Care to find the "magical" barrier stopping enough "micro evolutions" from becoming a macro one?
All mutations are neutral unless it kills the cell straight away. All other mutations need hindsight to see if they are good or not. Bad ones die out, good ones survive and reproduce.
And DNA can gain more information. Gene duplication. Then mutation in one of them.
microevolution is natural selection, where the weak die and the strong live. macroevolution is when an animals offspring has a positive mutation, a genome w/ different information than it's parents. mutation isn't some magic process that makes creatures different. it has rules, just like everything else.
All animals have different information to their parents. Thats why we are not exact clones. The difference is very slight, but it is there. Its that small change which makes us evolve over long periods of time. "macro" evolution often takes millions of years for new species to emerge, but it is just the result of lots of these small mutations to occur.
ok, go ask your dad where babies come from. the sperm has half the genetic info, the egg has the other. this information is information that was in the parent originally, not new info. "negative" mutation happens when a genome either loses information (i.e. a chicken w/o feathers) or repeats old information in the wrong sequence (i.e. an extra leg gene causing one to grow out of the creatures back). "positive" mutation is impossible.
That would be true except I am not exactly 50% dad and 50% mum. I have a hair colour neither of them have, and I am taller than both of them. According to you I should be an average of the both of them. I am not.
"positive mutation" is relative. What is good now might be bad later, and vice versa.
New information can be created when DNA duplicates a gene. Then one of the identical genes mutate while the other doesnt. New information is made, and natural selection determines whether it is good.
ever heard of recessive genes? maybe your mom had a recessive tall gene that reacted w/ your dad's tall gene and made you taller. my brother has blue eyes and neither of my parents have them, but they still had the gene, my brother didn't evolve blue eyes. it's a very common occurrence and is included in basic biology.
"positive" in this case doesn't mean "good." it means an increase in information, new information that wasn't there before. whether it is good or not is irrelevant.
Anybody who has studied biology would have realised I answered your question 3 posts back.
Increase in information: DNA duplicates a gene because it doesnt alway create an exact copy. Thus a new strand has 2 lots of the same gene. 1 of those gets a mutation. Thus information gets added. You still have the information on the old gene, and the duplicate gene has new information. This is an increase.
No, a mutation is when the DNA is not correctly copied, and the new strand has an alteration which changes the code. This has been proven to happen. A mutation changes the DNA.
Whats all this about non existent genes? I just pointed out that if something duplicates, there are now 2 of them. If one of the duplicates gets a mutation, you gain information.
what fantasy world are you from? watch the video above. it does have some good points about denialism itself... wait a second. denialism isn't even a word. nothing's coming up in spell check or the dictionary. whatever. the point is that what you are saying doesn't happen. it is chemically impossible and doesn't show up in real life. "a" doesn't sometimes stick to the "g's" RNA component. it follows natural law.
Yes it is always TA and CG but what has that got to do with anything?
It is not chemically impossible and it has been proven to happen. Mutations occur. That is a fact. Lots of mutations over very long periods of time creates new species.
see? you don't know anything about reproduction. mesenger RNA is what makes new proteins in a cell and helps produce new gametes. it isn't DNA.
I can see why evolutionists believe what they do. it seems fun an exciting to think that life is constantly advancing and that someday, humans will evolve to even greater potential, but, since science refutes it we just have to move on and be realistic w/ ourselves.
And "evolutionists" dont know evolution is a fact because they want humans to evolve more. We know it as a fact because there is zero evidence refuting it. All you have done is provided proof you dont know how it works.
and "creationists" dont know creation is a fact because they want God to exist. we know it is a fact because there is zero evidence refuting it. all you've done is proven that you dont know how basic genetics works.
There is all the evidence in the world refuting creationism. You are the one who doesnt know how our DNA works.
Everything I have said is true.
If there is so much evidence against evolution, why dont you write that scientific paper and win the Nobel prize? Why dont people who know more about genetics than you do realise it?
All the evidence we have found since Darwin has all agreed with the theory of evolution. Point out one piece of evidence that doesnt agree.
name one piece of evidence that refutes or conflicts w/ creationism.
you seriously don't know how DNA works, I swear. I just double checked.
where are the "positive" evolutions? even if it can possibly happen, it hasn't. and please keep in mind that "positive" doesn't mean "beneficial," it means "new." DNA that wasn't in the parents genes. your height is probably due to eating habits, your parents natural shrinking, and your genes that can be found in your parents.
Creationism as in young earth creationism or just that all animals appear today as they always have done?
Positive evolution; when an animal develops a new skin/fur colour to help survive in a new environment due to camouflage. A colour which isnt a mixture and hasnt been seen before.
It has happen in mice and dogs and pretty much any animal you can think of which has lots of varieties. (eg humans, where did white skinned people come from?)
skin pigment is defined primarily by six genes in three genomes. three are light, three are dark. if a human has three pairs of light genes, he is white. if he has three pairs of dark, he is dark black. in this way, there are twenty-seven different combinations and a possibility of one human having all six. the rest is due to genes that define your resistance to tanning and diet, but primarily these. it isn't hard to imagine that animals have similar genes.
But when humans first appeared in africa 100000 years ago, they would of all been black, having 6 black skin genes. There would of been no white ones.
There are many cases where animals evolve completely new colours to survive in new environments.
natural selection is real. it could be that, over the years, people w/ dark genes were preferred or better suited to survive and the white gene was simply bred out. they didn't gain dark genes, they simply lost their white genes. same thing but opposite must have happened to europeans.
how do you know which came first? fossils don't have skin. our bones look just like any other human's bones. the first humans were probably arabic colored.
what? are you listening to yourself? why am I the one fighting for natural selection here? I'm the creationist! it is hot and sunny in africa. therefore, it is an asset to be black because you have more melanin in your skin. so if people had kids and some were lighter, and some were darker, then it stands to reason that the darker ones were better suited for the environment. you say it was 100000 years ago. that is a long time to breed out a simple thing like the light-skin gene.
Actually the Black African hypothesis is based on studies of MC1R drift rates in isolated populations. It's how we know, for example, that Aboriginal Australians were part of one of the earliest departures from Africa.
Until the Bantu expansion about 5000 years ago, Africa had a very diverse range of skin colors. The San Bushman, the Pygmy people, and the North Africans are all very different skin tone from the Bantu. We would expect this from a diverse continent with common origins.
If you are talking about Young Earth Creationism, I will tell you to look at the trees and count the rings, we got tree rings going way further back than six thousand years (iirc, 11 thousand years in 1 type of tree, and almost 100 thousand in another)
Old World Creationism, I will point to the fact that humans evolved from ancestral species (homo erectus).
And that is a fact, by the way, the theory part is the explanation
I love how you throw the word "fact" around as if it has been proven that humans evolved from a lower species. classic evolutionist ignorance. in fact, evolution defies known natural laws about genetics.
tree rings are horrible calendars. true, the earth is probably closer to 11,000 years of age than 6,000, but tree rings sometimes form at other times than winter and the difference can add up the older the tree.
@DRealfriknKeenan Yeah, I am, because it is a proven fact that we did so. You should really check things before you try and correct me for it.
Which natural laws is it you claim Evolution breaks? I can't wait to hear what kind of ancient debunked crap you are going to bring out on that one, it is kind of funny how some of you sound like broken records.
And tree rings is just easily aviable data that all can understand, there is plenty of evidence of the real age of the world is in the billions
lol, silly person. first of all, it is physically impossible to prove something actually happened in the past that isn't happening now. don't believe me? prove right now that george washington existed.
evolution breaks the natural law that all mutations are either a loss of info (i.e. a fly born w/o wings) or an over repetition of old info (i.e. a fly born with seven legs).
There is no such law. We have only 26 letters, but how many ways can they be combined to create new words?
Likewise, proteins show what are called domains. The domains are frequently shuffled through gene fusions and transpositions, leading to new functions.
At least a dozen times in our ancestry, our entire genome became doubled in what is known as paleopolyploidy. Each of those doubled genes had a "backup", and were free to explore new functions.
I give an example on my eye evolution video. The first opsins (light sensing proteins) were most likely a fusion of a transmembrane domain to a cryptochrome (light using) protein.
We frequently see evidence of the borrowing of an existing protein for a new purpose. The crystallin proteins in your eye that make up your lens still have the ability to act like liver proteins, processing lipids they will never have access to.
Now, we humans could design a better system for the crystallin protein family. If it were me, I'd make it from a protein with a series of beta-sheets like collagen. It would be less prone to cataract that way. But the crystallins work fine for 5 or 6 decades, long enough to ensure reproduction, why would evolution want to keep our sight clear into our 80's?
If you prefer a divine Creator or Designer, then you need to explain why She chose for us to have cataracts at 60?
give up. evolution is dead. it has been for about a decade now. the only people who even cling to it anymore are these youtube fanatics who spend all their time debating w/ creationists. the only reason they still teach it in school is because they'd have to teach a religion if they didn't.
do you know how DNA rewrites itself? it doesn't randomly scramble the chemicals and it doesn't bring in other chemicals that don't belong.
I don't come here to debate. There is no scientific case against evolution. This is outreach and education.
I suggest you watch my video "The Light of Evolution". I talk about the work I am currently doing on prostate cancer diagnostics. I use evolution, on the macro level, every day in my development of medical diagnostics.
I don't really care what's TRUE, I just care what WORKS. Creationism is a dead end in science. It doesn't tell us anything. It's not going to save lives.
Evolution, on the other hand, has and is making possible the unraveling of genetics of population, disease markers, infectious and emerging pathogen, and revealing to us a great deal about where we came from, and why we are the way we are.
I can't think of a single medical advancement made from the study of creationism. Can you?
@kevinscales which one? don't we have freedom of religion in america? we can't teach kids that all other religions are trash. that would be cruel and a bit presumptuous of us, don't you think?
(p.s. it's Ironic because that's what we're doing in schools right now! lol)
@kevinscales then why is there such thing as history class? prove right now that any of the Caesars existed. sure we have books and pictures of them, but we have those of God too and we don't have a "God class" (in secular schools).
@DRealfriknKeenan Distinguishing between myths and truths in history involves having to build up as much evidence as possible. If somthing is seemingly impossible and there is no evidence for it (other than stories) then it is treated as myth. Evidence and plausibility are key. Religions don't have the same evidence for them that the roman leaders do.
@kevinscales you said "shown to be true," not "accepted as true" which is closer to the truth. just because there is evidence for something, doesn't mean it is true.
schools teach evolution because it is ACCEPTED as true, as it hasn't been SHOWN to be true. in fact, there isn't even evidence that it is true. it is an exaggeration of current scientific facts.
@DRealfriknKeenan So which facts have been exaggerated? Why would so many scientists accept somthing as true without evidence. We are talking about scientists here, the most skeptical people on the planet when it comes to scientific claims. Read a book or two about the scientific method and about the evidence for evolution if your really interested.
@kevinscales Hold it. are you saying that you are putting your faith in people rather than observable facts? it sounds like you're saying that the reason you believe in evolution is because a lot of smart people do too.
@DRealfriknKeenan Of course I have to trust people who know more than me, there is a lot of information and I have limited time and interest, but i've looked into it as far as I can. My stance is to trust in those people as long as they give me no reason to not trust them. "it fits seamlessly w/ creation theory" - ocams razor cuts out creation theory. "come from a common ancestor w/o altering their their genetic code" - the genetic code has to be altered to get any difference.
Sounds like you might be putting alot of faith in people, who have little more then a vocational education. So why the hell would you not rely on FACTs from people who have spent 6 or more years studying specific fields?
@3vi14n931 when the mechanic fixes my car, how do I know he did a good job? the car works. same with my computer and my roof.
I trust them to get the job done because I can actively test to see that they are right. however, science isn't that simple. you can't have two mechanics who disagree on how cars run. one of those people isn't a good mechanic. and it's plain to see who's right when you try out the car. not so w/ science or religion.
@DRealfriknKeenan EXACTLY! You can verify what the mechanic does, You can verify what the tech and roofer do. You can VERIFY what science does. You cannot VERIFY what your god does. And since when is Religion Disagreeing with Science comparable to two mechanics disagreeing. They are completely different subjects! Religion requires FAITH (believing without knowing). Science requires EVIDENCE.
@3vi14n931 right so "verify" evolution or show me the evidence. and "this creature kinda looks like this other one" doesn't count.
as for nylonase, they are still studying this "adaptation." perhaps there is a preexisting gene in the bacteria that some activated. besides, have you seen this bacteria? if you think having faith in something is so bad, why do you believe the claims of a group notorious for correcting themselves?
@DRealfriknKeenan How about the multiple accounts of speciation, in the lab and out. Or our our ability to map genetics down to our common ancestors. Or the demonstrable effects of natural selection. Oh wait, here comes the ear plugging and the refulsal to actually look anything up.
BECAUSE, we are notorious for CORRECTING ourselves! With every correction we get that much closer to the reality of how things work! We don't PRETEND to have all the answers and then plug our ears!
1: It currently isn't possible to map down to our earlier ancestors. if you call this covering my ears then sorry. many creatures do have common ancestors but these are all within reasonable limits. a fish doesn't turn into an amphibian no matter how close they are. we can theorize and speculate but that's where it ends.
besides, how do you account for all the claims of cold fusion over the years?
2: exactly. THEY (meaning educated scientists ie NOT you) correct faulty data
@DRealfriknKeenan 1. So please with your scientific insight enlighten me, exactly what is the limit of genetic change? When does a creature say, "you know what, that is enough changing for me, I think Ill stop here."
1b. WTF does biology and evolution have to do with cold fusion?
1c. 2 Scientist claimed they conducted cold fusion, others tested and falsified it, they were then promptly shown the door for being sloppy!
2. Your right you must know that my BA in Biology means nothing.
@3vi14n931 1: go back to your word example. vulcanologist (if it was a genetic code) could not become vulcanelogist or vulcanoelogist because the information "e" does not exist in the sequence. it could, however, become vulcannologist or vulcanlogist because that is a loss or repetition of existing data.
1b: it's faulty data that scientists and engineers have claimed but later was rejected.
1c: there have been more than two cases and doesn't that mean some evolutionist data could b sloppy?
@DRealfriknKeenan 1. Link en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Gene_duplication
1b. Once again we correct our information, unlike people clinging to a bronze age book.
1c. Sloppy tests lead to sloppy data. The benefit of Evolutionary Biology is that the tests are done in real time in the world around us. In the exact environment they apply to, Without humans needing to intervene. All we have to do is observe!
1: wikipedia isn't the most reliable site on the net but I read it anyway and I didn't see anything that I disagreed with. I know it isn't fair to ask for an example (especially since I just rejected nylonase) but w/ our limited understanding of genomes the best way to study evolution would be through evidence found in complex organisms.
@DRealfriknKeenan No saying that we know so little about the Genome makes me a little angry. I think we know more about the genome then you may be aware of. For example are you aware we have mapped the ENTIRE human genome and we can do it in a matter of days if not hours now. Look up the International HapMap Project. Sry. I know I said the last post would be it, but this is a subject that has had my attention for some time now.
1b: if a child with out any experience or education says that space exists, is he wrong? just because an idea doesn't change, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
2: rule #3 of the internet, dude. we are anonymous. unless I traced your youtube account to something like a email or facebook. theres no way that I know who the heck you are. even then how do I know you didn't fabricate that? I'm not too computer savvy.
and thats not the point of my argument. if a person with a PhD in genetics, and biology claimed that there was undeniable proof that evolution was an actual historical, event but couldn't show me evidence, he might as well be 5 years old
@DRealfriknKeenan We might as well face the facts, If a room full of PHD's carried you to the fossils, drew you a map of the genetic code, or showed you every known speciation event ever recorded you would close your eyes and walk away. You will not concede to anything that does not go along with your story book. So in my final comment I will link some evidence. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".
I know at least thirty religious people who believe in evolution. it doesn't really contradict a non-literal translation of genesis. right now, I am at the default position of not believing in evolution. why don't you believe that there is some all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible entity? it works if he does exist but that doesn't mean that he does, right? I just would like some substantial science or rational behind my physical beliefs
@DRealfriknKeenan I completely understand skepticism on ANY subject, I am simply attempting to point you in the direction were you can find the information to make an informed and rational decision. If I offended, my apologies. Take care and best of luck with your search.
no offense taken. I know how it is. there are tons of trolls on youtube who don't really know what they're talking about and you get sick and tired of meeting the virtual clones of the same ignoramus. I know I have. thanks for the research data. I'll get on that and next semester I'll take a genetics course. maybe I'll learn something.
@kevinscales I have read books by evolutionists before. they always quote natural selection as undeniable evidence for evolution despite the fact that it fits seamlessly w/ creation theory. for example, the evolutionary tree:
it is easy to see that darwin's finches could have come from a common ancestor w/o altering their their genetic code; but evolutionists use it as evidence that the finches shared ancestors w/ other birds w/ completely different genetic codes.
I see that an AIDS denialist has starting making video's that to me just look like personal attacks on C0nc0rdance, Which really doesn't surprise me. It's that one youtube user "mykoolaidtastesfunny" This person is one brick short of a full load. I dont think that making attack video's is cool or right in any way, And The person being attacked in the video should be told..
hitcan79 6 days ago
this stuff is genius
floppies 1 month ago
Smoking cause loads of other cancers than just lung cancer.
JRBendixen 1 month ago
@JRBendixen
Absolutely, and of course saying that "smoking causes cancer" is a bit of an oversimplification, since smoking alone is not a sufficient cause. The proper term is component cause, as in a component of multiple events that lead to cancer progression.
How are you JR?
C0nc0rdance 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance Component cause you say. Well I have not heard the english term before your comment. Still you are of course right. But to be true I almost never bother to explain the chain of effects for any given senario in a comment section. Otherwise This would be a full time job.
Besides I do not know all the details, but 2 of my family members are cancer specialists. And they can tell loads and loads about who is and Who Is´nt going to be treatet by them and for what.
JRBendixen 1 month ago
@JRBendixen Almost needless to say, none of them or their coworkers are smokers. That should be just about enough of a reason not to start smoking for most people.
About the quote:"How are you JR?". Well things are fine, though my personal needs ect. has been downplayed at late. It´s not a bad thingy though, I´ve just been taking care of our daughter. Still things are looking very bright for all of us.
Thanks for asking and I presume you are doing just well :)
JRBendixen 1 month ago
Where is the "Subscribe Again" button???
brewerbrian420 1 month ago
We actually moved the Doomsday Clock forward today, and one of the reasons is science-denial of superstitious bastards. We are facing fucking end of the world because of religious morons.
bary1234 1 month ago
Your argument is perfectly logical, considering that you phrased it as a "better" option, rather than the "best" option. If anything, the concept of a global conspiracy among scientists is just too improbable. It's basically saying that 99% of people can be programmed to be dishonest and defend a lie which can only be exposed by a handful of con artists selling books.
HorrorIllogium 1 month ago
Hey c0nc0rdance, i'm really stuck here. I guess it's wrong, but i read and have seen that AZT causes aids, or at least does not improve conditions. someone even showed me a paper on pubmed. I have no medical background. But I feel it's all part of aids denialism. this is the paper pubmed/7908356 can you enlighten me? is AZT harmful or helpful and where do i find evidence that i can trust?
Quiestre 1 month ago
@Quiestre
AZT monotherapy isn't used in the US anymore. We use HAART now, which attacks multiple stages of the viral life cycle.
Was AZT effective and safe? Yes, according to dozens of double-blind randomized control trials. Here's one as an example:
AIDS. 1994 Mar;8(3):313-21.
"Zidovudine delayed progression to symptomatic HIV disease (P = 0.01); a trend in a delay in progression to CDC stage IV disease was observed (P = 0.08). Substantial toxicity was not observed."
C0nc0rdance 1 month ago
Ann Intern Med. 1990 May 15;112(10):727-37.
"Zidovudine delayed progression of HIV disease and produced little toxicity in subjects with mildly symptomatic HIV disease and less than 500 CD4 T lymphocytes/mm3."
N Engl J Med. 1990 Apr 5;322(14):941-9.
"We conclude that zidovudine is safe and effective in persons with asymptomatic HIV infection and fewer than 500 CD4+ cells per cubic millimeter. "
These were all double blind placebo-controlled trials.
C0nc0rdance 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance thank you so much!
Quiestre 1 month ago
The article you referenced, the Concorde study:
Lancet. 1994 Apr 9;343(8902):871-81. which concluded:
"there was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome between the two therapeutic policies."
was a comparison of treatment at diagnosis (the American model) and treatment at the onset of full-blown AIDS (the European model). Both groups received AZT therapy during the course of their disease... it was only a question of WHEN: immediately or deferred.
C0nc0rdance 1 month ago
This was a significant discovery because it validated that maintaining a low viral load wasn't going to prevent or even much delay disease. The virus was replicating in areas where the therapy wasn't reaching, and the immune system was still being depleted. AIDS progressed whether the patients took antivirals or not.
If anything, these AZT naive people prove that AZT does NOT cause AIDS symptoms, since they weren't treated until their immune systems were compromised.
C0nc0rdance 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance It's even more frustrating to talk to aids denialists than to creationists. They even call you a liar and say you are paid to do so a "drug company whore" it's so pointless...
Quiestre 1 month ago
@Quiestre
This tactic has a name: the "Pharma Shill Gambit". When confronted with opposition to a strongly held belief, we usually assume our opponents are incompetent. If they demonstrate obvious competence, then we assume they are malevolent.
By calling you a shill, they're actually complimenting you on your knowledge! They're saying you know your stuff, so the only way you can hold your "wrong" view is if you're a liar.
The psychology of denialism is fascinating.
C0nc0rdance 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance Well I'm looking forward to your new project. C0nc0rdances Answers was it, right? Because there are almost an unlimited number of pseudoscience out there. And i just start to learn, I used to be on the crazy side too. Denialism of HIV/AIDS (thought evils scientists did it) and all crazy alien illuminati conspiracies. You are one of those who helped me to get in touch with reality again. thank you.
Quiestre 1 month ago
@Quiestre wow you are actually an ex HIV AIDS denialist? I know this dudes video's are good but damn! lol anyway, welcome back.
hitcan79 1 month ago
@hitcan79 yeah, i believed all kinds of crazy non sense. I was a hardcore conspiracy theorist. 911, moon landing, aliens, illuminati, aids, kennedy everything you can imagine. but then richard dawkins came along and QualiaSoup, as well as c0nc0rdance.
Quiestre 1 month ago
Don't forget to include
5 anthropogenic global warming (AGW)
Denialists are brainwashed by their dangerous AGW-denying cult.
mphello 4 months ago
@mphello While there is a general agreement for AGW, it is not at the same level of scientific agreement as HIV/AIDS or Evolution. As while in HIV/AIDS or Evolution you have a 0.02% decent, AGW have a 3-5% decent. This still means there is a 95-97% agreement, but the decent is 150-250 times as large. This is not to say that I do not believe in AGW, but just that AGW does not share the same level as HIV/AIDS or Evolution.
Loathomar 1 month ago
neither is science. But casual intelligence design can at least be considered a valid opinion....it doesn't prompt people to let themselves be killed by a disease. AIDS denialism lives on the same crazy stupid people as creationists.
snillocgrom 7 months ago
NOT EXACTLY: SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER IT ONLY GIVES YOU MORE CHANCE TO GET CANCER SO DOES HIV ==> THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE IMMUNE TO IT ( VERY RARE ) JUST THE SAME WITH MONONUCLEOSIS :-) DOES IT REALY MATTER ? DON'T WORRY BE HAPPY :-)
jetunknownactor 8 months ago
@jetunknownactor
True, but is it nessesary to type in all caps? It doesn't exactly make any sort of point more valid.
NUTCASE71733 7 months ago
Number 1 and 3 certainly don't meet my criteria for strongly proven theories because they are not foundations for many other widely accepted bodies of knowledge nor would their omission require the rewriting of many other bodies of knowledge.
dartplayer170 9 months ago
Number 4 is the foundation for much of biology, not to mention its relationship to DNA, geology, dating systems.
dartplayer170 9 months ago
Number 2 is supported by many other theories and historical events. Nuclear power plants, Hiroshima, Astrophysics ( solar and stellar models ), particle and nuclear physics theories, not to mention many subtle nuances in physical chemistry theories.
dartplayer170 9 months ago
Let me give a short lesson about proof. It's not about how much direct evidence there is to support some theory, but rather how intermeshed that theory is with other well accepted theories. History establishes this concept very well. For example, it was very difficult for physicists to accept the theory of special relativity at first because it overturned the foundation of all classical physics. It is very rare for such a solid theory to be overturned.
dartplayer170 9 months ago
Is it not true Concordance that you deny the accepted scientific view that all quantum mechanical models are stochastic when it comes to the debate on Free Will? Is this not Selective Acceptance? How can anyone really criticize another for Selective Acceptance and be so arrogant as to ascertain that they have no Selective Acceptance? Food for thought, no???
dartplayer170 9 months ago
@TheDrunkenCabDriver no u
AnonymousElektron 9 months ago
Excuse me but HIV causes AIDS has NOT been arrived at scientifically and there is no consensus on what, exactly, causes AIDS.
AnonymousElektron 10 months ago
@AnonymousElektron Correct, tiny evil monkeys do it.
TemperedAlchemist 9 months ago
@TemperedAlchemist u mad?
AnonymousElektron 9 months ago
"Selective acceptance" is the word I've been looking for for a while.
uriituw 10 months ago
Thank you for your thorough examination of the flawed logic of pseudoscientific denialism.
dialecticas 10 months ago
It's very disturbing, how many people actually believe that the entire scientific community is run by a huge world wide conspiracy. Don't you people think a few of these scientists might have enough respect for the truth, to say something about it???
seeqer66 10 months ago
Am I the only one who hopes that Peter "Douchebag" Duesberg gets HIV?
ryb19100 1 year ago
This videos quenstion is easy... what if 1 of the subjects were not science? how would people know which is science and which is not?
Answer: they don't
and alot of non-science is being sold off as science becourse of it.
Meansofviewing 1 year ago
@Meansofviewing BZZZZZT!!! Wrong answer. It's really easy to tell when a subject is science, and when it's not. Is it based on evidence? Has the evidence been debated and peer reviewed? If the answer is yes, it's science. Whatever the final outcome is. All four questions are solidly understood by scientists. All four questions can be answered in the affirmative.
seeqer66 10 months ago
@seeqer66
I was talking about how one could tell weather something was science or not,
and i was mainly reffering to the lay public, although i left that for the reader to figure.
how many people of the lay public reads peer reviews? i guess a few at best.
i could easy sell off aquatic ape hypothesis to others even though it's not science.
And the truth is alot of non-science is sold as science becourse people don't know better,
AND don't want to know better, so they simply pick what they like.
Meansofviewing 10 months ago
@Meansofviewing Ah, I missed your point. Though technically, the "aquatic ape" theory, was science. It's just science that didn't pan out when the evidence was examined. It was a valid theory and it was examined properly. It was just wrong. Or at least it's wrong according to all available evidence to date. Too bad, I really liked the theory when it was proposed.
seeqer66 10 months ago
Fuck you
PokeDot517 1 year ago
So just because 99.98% of scientists say A is true and only 0.02% say B is true, it HAS to be A? Otherwise you're using selective acceptance?
Hmm..
But what if 99.98% of the scientists only exist because they are funded by powerfull people who us to believe that A is true and not B? While only 0.02% of the scientists are funded by people who realy care for the truth?
I think the maker of this video himSELF is using selective acceptance...
CCLJunky 1 year ago
But what if.... The 99.98% of the scientists are right and isn't being controlled by a vast conspiracy?
DKshad0w 1 year ago
@DKshad0w Then everything is dandy and we will all go towards a beautifull future.
But what if the conspiracy is real and even bigger than you could ever imagine?
Would you care to know? Or would you rather live in ignorant bliss?
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky
But what if... you are part of the conspiracy! or or.. I am!!! MAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
DKshad0w 1 year ago
@DKshad0w I should've known, you're a bordeline IQ American. I'm not wasting my time on your kind anymore. Have a nice day :)
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky First, the video (and description box) state "Knowing what is real and what is unsupported by evidence is a daunting task, but when 99.95% of scientists hold that the evidence supports one theory over another, it's a safe bet for the layman that the minor viewpoint hasn't met the burden of proof."
Second, if you really think there's a conspiracy then you will easily be able to discover the truth yourself. Even retarded goldfish can perfectly follow the scientific method.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 First, the scientific establishment these days is fucked up beyond repair. Corruption is the norm and research is determined by money and not by science or the quest for knowledge anymore. So if 99.95% of the "scientists" support a particular claim, it's mainly because they HAVE to, otherwise they won't be able to fund their own research. A perfect example of that is the recent climategate scandal. Science = Politics = Money.
Second, fuck you to buddy.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky
I don't think you have any idea how research funding works. It's very easy to disparage an entire field of human activity if you don't have to support your claims with any factual evidence.
Why don't you do some research on R01 NIH grants, and come back and tell us who determines which applications are funded. Is it a political appointee? An administrator?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you buddy, because that's wasted energy. If you wanna believe that the scientific community is ALWAYS telling you the truth, just because the majority of them says so, then fine. Be that naive. I can't becasue i've seen enough examples of the perverted corruption inside the scientific establishment.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky "I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you buddy, because that's wasted energy." So it's wasted energy to defend your declarations of a conspiracy or to actually do the simplest of research yet not so to proclaim something you have no knowledge about is not?
"the scientific community is ALWAYS telling you the truth" This is not the claim we are making.
"just because the majority of them says so, then fine" The majority says where the evidence tends to point.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"i've seen enough examples of the perverted corruption inside the scientific establishment."
Then do your own fucking research. Go to a random island and catalog the wildlife there for biology. Examine the geographic formations of the island. Dig for fossils there. Etc.
The results of deceit in science upon one's reputation hinders deceit among scientists. Also, "frauds" IN SCIENCE are revealed as such BY SCIENCE before they are ever accepted AS SCIENCE. (Fyi, because of the method.)
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
"So it's wasted energy to defend your declarations of a conspiracy"
On braindamaged american teenage punks like you, yes.
"you have no knowledge about"
You have no knowledge about my knowledge, so stuff it.
"This is not the claim we are making"
"we"? lol. I guess the herd mentallity realy is very important at your age.
"The majority says where the evidence tends to point"
No, the majority listens to a selected few within that majority and then they regurgitate what they say.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky
"because of the method"
Fuck "the method". That's what i'm saying, the method is corrupted. It doesn't work anymore! Money is now the method.
Every scientist who wants to research subjects that are not wanted in the establishment, will have a very hard time to get funds. And when they do get their research funded, their works is simply being excluded from "the method" called peer review, because not a single peer outlet will publish their work.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky Science is nothing more than bussiness these days. For example. Just look at climate science. Before they started this worldwide hoax about manmade CO2 warming up the planet, research into this field was just a couple of million per year. But these days, it's multiple Billions a year. And once they got their carbon tax, it's TRIllions a year.
You wouldn't get funds for researching common dirt, but if you said you wanted to see what impact it has on the climate then sure, no problem.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky And that's a very VERY dangerous setting. Because once polictics decides which research is is being doen and which is being surpressed, then there's realy no limit to what dictators can shove down our throats for scientific truth.
Just look at the time when everyone KNEW that the earth was flat and everyone who researched other possibilities, was either burned at the stake or was driven into exile.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky
[the method is corrupted. It doesn't work anymore! Money is now the method.] Then you don't understand what the scientific method is. It's been the same for over 500 years: Observe. Question. Hypothesize. Test. Conclude. Repeat.
"Every scientist who wants to research subjects that are not wanted in the establishment, will have a very hard time to get funds" Then you haven't been in a college-level lab for ANY 'school' of science.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
[their works is simply being excluded from "the method" called peer review] Peer-review systems are highly competitive and individualistic.
In addition, those on the boards are very critical because ANYTHING submitted to them that is shown false discredits them AND the scientists.
Additionally, anything that is NOT FALSE that they don't publish first will go against their reputation.
Which if you had any experience in the peer-review process would realize even this much.
onijester56 1 year ago
@CCLJunky You make a claim derailing something you don't show any knowledge of. Either you provide evidence to support your claims or you don't complain when people call you on your bullshit. Elementary-school logic that even "braindamaged american teenage punks" have figured out.
"You have no knowledge about my knowledge" Then prove me wrong. So far you have failed to understand the simple, so (until YOU PROVE OTHERWISE) you demonstrate that the less-simple stuff you don't know shit about.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 I'm not complaining, i'm just expressing my opinion. Which i have based on personal experience and 2nd hand experiences of many many other people. However, i can't prove anything i have said, not on an internet forum like this. If you want to know if any of it holds any truth, you'd have to listen and talk to the same people as i did.
You can't make a horse drink. Too bad your elementary-school level intelligence hasn't figured that one out yet.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky "However, i can't prove anything i have said, not on an internet forum like this." Present one source. All you have to do. One article that unquestionably proves your point while showing an understanding of the scientific method.
"If you want to know if any of it holds any truth, you'd have to listen and talk to the same people as i did." You fail to mention names or credentials, leaving your sources unable to be talked to.
"You can't make a horse drink." I actually have. :P
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 Hahaha. You are hilarious. You realy think i'm gonna invest time and effort into looking up the information you're asking for?! For what? For you? To try and prove something to you, a stranger on the internet? LOL!
Nah. I'm perfectly happy with the idea of you thinking that i'm blowing this all out of my ass and that i don't know shit :)
With all due respect buddy, but i realy dont give a flying fuck about your opinion about me. So.. No offense.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CCLJunky "You realy think i'm gonna invest time and effort into looking up the information you're asking for?!" No evidence for your claims equates your claims to nothing.
Ergo your refusal of even the tiniest bit of evidence shows your claims as invalid. And your repeated demonstrations of ignorance don't help your case, either.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
["we"? lol. I guess the herd mentallity realy is very important at your age.] Let's ignore that you fail to even question your beliefs which conflict with the reality THAT YOU BELIEVE GOD MADE.
Both me AND the video-author responded to you. In fact stating NOTHING of absolute/dogmatic adherence. Yet you REPEATEDLY make a claim that NEITHER OF US HAS MADE.
Ergo, the words are right: We (me and the author) did not say what you claim we said.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
"No, the majority listens to a selected few within that majority and then they regurgitate what they say." Then you should have absolutely no problem PROVING THAT THERE IS SUCH A CONSPIRACY.
You should be more than 100% capable of showing that the Ptolemaic cosmological system is valid. And that all matter is made up of 4-5 elements (earth, air, fire, water). And that all life is created to be subservient to mankind. And that diseases are caused by imbalances in the properties of the soul.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 Typical how polarised your thinking is. It's either black or white in your mind, isn't it. I can't prove it on YouTube so it's not true.
You're patheticly naive friend but i can't blame you, you're only 19 years old. I can only hope that once you've reached my age, your own experience will have proven me right.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky "It's either black or white in your mind, isn't it." You don't provide ANY SOURCE AT ALL FOR YOUR CLAIMS. Not even a name of ONE of your contacts. Yet you expect everyone to bow down to you and kiss your feet for being a champion of truth.
Here's a hint: Extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence. And your claim is one of the most because it dismisses the ONLY method able to prove it.
"your own experience will have proven me right. " Since I'll be funding my own research, :P
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 Man, you're dense. You're not getting anything im saying. You just keep regurgitating the same braindead line. You bore me. I'm off.
CCLJunky 1 year ago
@CCLJunky "You just keep regurgitating the same braindead line." It was YOU who responded to a claim that WAS NOT MADE TO BEGIN WITH. And then you spun that strawman into a claim of a conspiracy.
You refuse to support your claim with even the smallest scrap of anything. And as you refuse to support your claim, you demonstrate ignorance of what you discuss.
And yet asking you to prove yourself while revealing to you the reality that you ignore is "regurgitating the same braindead line"?
onijester56 1 year ago
Comment removed
CCLJunky 1 year ago
(cont)
And also you should have no problem showing that lifeforms from a planet several hundred thousand lightyears away taught early man basic architectural aspects.
And that's just a select list of some "minorities" in science. Not even mentioning that the same method that completely disproves most of them and casts more-than-reasonable doubt on the other ones is the same method that led to the functioning of the computer and the connection to the internet you have.
onijester56 1 year ago
Love it. I've been having similar thoughts regarding the public debate regarding evolution (as opposed to the scientific debate, which does not exist), and I couldn't have found a better term for it than selective acceptance. Now, could somebody explain to me why anyone with the level of irrationality required to take creationism slightly seriously is allowed to run for any public office at any level?
DarthVictive 1 year ago
who knows, if you aren't smart enough u will never know
albibalbialbibalbi 1 year ago
Thanks to the question at the end, I hope your ready for a bunch of nonsensical rationalizations. Lol
seeingglass86 1 year ago
Is it a fact, that people with autoimmune diseases test positive when tested for HIV. If so, what if i have Rheumatoid arthritis and treated for HIV instead of RA? Are there cases of people who suffer from an autoimmune disease who are misdiagnosed and treated for HIV instead?
seektherapy70 1 year ago
@seektherapy70 HIV causes the oposite effect of an Autoimmune Disease. AD's cause the bodys immune system to over act and attack parts of the body. The HIV virus causes AIDS (Autoimmune Deficiency Syndrome) because the virus procreates by attacking and replicating withing the bodys white blood cells, leaving the immune system undercapable. Hope this helps :)
3vi14n931 1 year ago
Is it true, people with autoimmune diseases will test positive for HIV?
seektherapy70 1 year ago
@seektherapy70 No. It is possible for someone with an Autoimmune Disease to contract the HIV virus, but there is no link.
3vi14n931 1 year ago
I don't even understand why these conversations are necessary any more. Isn't man sufficiently mature enough to no longer have to believe in the boogeyman?
captwasabi 1 year ago
classical denialism
carehappens 1 year ago
Naive.
dblazquezsanz 1 year ago
All scientists are evil, muahaha...
*serious mode on*
My sister's boyfriend believe that avian flu, and the latest swine flu are genetically modified strain of bac, that was purposefully spread to 3rd world country (china and mexico), so that the pharmaceutical company can make lots of money by selling the pre-made tamiflu...
I hope my sister doesnt marry him because I wont be able to resist ridiculing him in every family union...
caseyrainer 1 year ago
Basically. The author of this video shows he has absolutely no knowledge of scientific epistemology. Unfortunately, this is very common amongst scientists with mediocre training
Basic science states, you can NEVER proof anything, you can only disprove hypotheses. So absolutely nothing in science is certain and all should be questioned.
ArmagedonV01 1 year ago
@ArmagedonV01 the point is not that people should accept these statements on authority, it's that the deniers of those statements do so without any good cause what so ever. The evidence is there, the equations have been proven, the work has been done, and human knowledge and technology have advanced based on these achievements. and yet people still deny them without a shred of counter evidence. that's the point of the video.
beren082 1 year ago
The 4 statements you provided as examples are all commonly accepted as fact, and I agree with all 4, but I do not believe your argument to be completely valid. Just because a person (or in this case a group of people) is right about one thing does not automatically make them right about another.
Slipppppers 1 year ago
nice vid dude. you make a great point here.
azumaninjay 2 years ago
first of all, there is evidence for # 1-3. testable, repeatable data. you can't test evolution unless you can live for thousands of years. many experts oppose evolution (more than 0.00005%). you are comparing apples to oranges. there are some scientists who say HIV doesnt cause aids, but they believe in evolution. there are some who believe in neither and others who believe in both.
is it unreasonable for us to demand evidence? y should we accept an idea just cause a "smart" person said 2
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
There are 258,486 scientific articles on "evolution" indexed in Medline. 207,266 articles on "HIV". "cancer smoking" produces 30,800 hits.
They each contain new evidence, or reviews of past evidence. How many would you say you have read? I have a PhD and 10 years in research, and I haven't read 1% of all the papers in my own field of virology. How shall the average layperson distinguish among the many voices, each with equal access to media like the Internet?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Well considering there is plenty of evidence for certain animals evolving in our lifespan and recorded history, there is testable proof for evolution.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
unfortunately, there is not. there is plenty of micro-evolution, natural selection, but there isn't such a thing as "positive" mutation, where an organisms genome gains new information.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
This is a boring creationist canard, and it's CB102 on the talkorigins FAQ. Google it, then go look up definitions of information. Shannon entropy should be high on your list.
I've made a video to identify where we disagree. Go figure where we differ on the mechanisms of biological variation and post a comment there.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
@DRealfriknKeenan dou even know what "positive" mutation is? How about mutation in general? Why do you accept evolution then deny it by saying "micro"? Why couldn't animals ALWAYS evolve, especially since we both can accept it they are doing it now? Do you even know how genome got information in the first place, you know, how it "gained" information to begin with? What do you know, really?
caligulaincarnate 2 years ago
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except the time you take to look at them. Macro=micro x long period of time. Care to find the "magical" barrier stopping enough "micro evolutions" from becoming a macro one?
All mutations are neutral unless it kills the cell straight away. All other mutations need hindsight to see if they are good or not. Bad ones die out, good ones survive and reproduce.
And DNA can gain more information. Gene duplication. Then mutation in one of them.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
where'd you learn biology, a barn?
microevolution is natural selection, where the weak die and the strong live. macroevolution is when an animals offspring has a positive mutation, a genome w/ different information than it's parents. mutation isn't some magic process that makes creatures different. it has rules, just like everything else.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Did you even learn biology at all?
All animals have different information to their parents. Thats why we are not exact clones. The difference is very slight, but it is there. Its that small change which makes us evolve over long periods of time. "macro" evolution often takes millions of years for new species to emerge, but it is just the result of lots of these small mutations to occur.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
ok, go ask your dad where babies come from. the sperm has half the genetic info, the egg has the other. this information is information that was in the parent originally, not new info. "negative" mutation happens when a genome either loses information (i.e. a chicken w/o feathers) or repeats old information in the wrong sequence (i.e. an extra leg gene causing one to grow out of the creatures back). "positive" mutation is impossible.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
That would be true except I am not exactly 50% dad and 50% mum. I have a hair colour neither of them have, and I am taller than both of them. According to you I should be an average of the both of them. I am not.
"positive mutation" is relative. What is good now might be bad later, and vice versa.
New information can be created when DNA duplicates a gene. Then one of the identical genes mutate while the other doesnt. New information is made, and natural selection determines whether it is good.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
ever heard of recessive genes? maybe your mom had a recessive tall gene that reacted w/ your dad's tall gene and made you taller. my brother has blue eyes and neither of my parents have them, but they still had the gene, my brother didn't evolve blue eyes. it's a very common occurrence and is included in basic biology.
"positive" in this case doesn't mean "good." it means an increase in information, new information that wasn't there before. whether it is good or not is irrelevant.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
That is exactly what gene duplication does.
Anybody who has studied biology would have realised I answered your question 3 posts back.
Increase in information: DNA duplicates a gene because it doesnt alway create an exact copy. Thus a new strand has 2 lots of the same gene. 1 of those gets a mutation. Thus information gets added. You still have the information on the old gene, and the duplicate gene has new information. This is an increase.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
I am sorry, but that is scientifically inaccurate.
a mutation isn't changing the gene, it is using the gene in the wrong way. if the gene doesn't exist, then it can't effect the organism.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
No, a mutation is when the DNA is not correctly copied, and the new strand has an alteration which changes the code. This has been proven to happen. A mutation changes the DNA.
Whats all this about non existent genes? I just pointed out that if something duplicates, there are now 2 of them. If one of the duplicates gets a mutation, you gain information.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
what fantasy world are you from? watch the video above. it does have some good points about denialism itself... wait a second. denialism isn't even a word. nothing's coming up in spell check or the dictionary. whatever. the point is that what you are saying doesn't happen. it is chemically impossible and doesn't show up in real life. "a" doesn't sometimes stick to the "g's" RNA component. it follows natural law.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Now what are you on about?
Yes it is always TA and CG but what has that got to do with anything?
It is not chemically impossible and it has been proven to happen. Mutations occur. That is a fact. Lots of mutations over very long periods of time creates new species.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
see? you don't know anything about reproduction. mesenger RNA is what makes new proteins in a cell and helps produce new gametes. it isn't DNA.
I can see why evolutionists believe what they do. it seems fun an exciting to think that life is constantly advancing and that someday, humans will evolve to even greater potential, but, since science refutes it we just have to move on and be realistic w/ ourselves.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
lol
DNA makes the messenger RNA.
Why dont you put your "findings" into a peer reviewed paper, disprove evolution, and win the noble prize? Hmm?
Is it perhaps because these are just your assumptions based on lack of understand the theory perhaps?
Your arguments here seem to suggest that is the case.
If I am an evolutionist, then I am also a gravitist and germist, because I "believe" in the theory of gravity and the germ theory.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
And "evolutionists" dont know evolution is a fact because they want humans to evolve more. We know it as a fact because there is zero evidence refuting it. All you have done is provided proof you dont know how it works.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
and "creationists" dont know creation is a fact because they want God to exist. we know it is a fact because there is zero evidence refuting it. all you've done is proven that you dont know how basic genetics works.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Say what?
There is all the evidence in the world refuting creationism. You are the one who doesnt know how our DNA works.
Everything I have said is true.
If there is so much evidence against evolution, why dont you write that scientific paper and win the Nobel prize? Why dont people who know more about genetics than you do realise it?
All the evidence we have found since Darwin has all agreed with the theory of evolution. Point out one piece of evidence that doesnt agree.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
name one piece of evidence that refutes or conflicts w/ creationism.
you seriously don't know how DNA works, I swear. I just double checked.
where are the "positive" evolutions? even if it can possibly happen, it hasn't. and please keep in mind that "positive" doesn't mean "beneficial," it means "new." DNA that wasn't in the parents genes. your height is probably due to eating habits, your parents natural shrinking, and your genes that can be found in your parents.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Creationism as in young earth creationism or just that all animals appear today as they always have done?
Positive evolution; when an animal develops a new skin/fur colour to help survive in a new environment due to camouflage. A colour which isnt a mixture and hasnt been seen before.
It has happen in mice and dogs and pretty much any animal you can think of which has lots of varieties. (eg humans, where did white skinned people come from?)
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
skin pigment is defined primarily by six genes in three genomes. three are light, three are dark. if a human has three pairs of light genes, he is white. if he has three pairs of dark, he is dark black. in this way, there are twenty-seven different combinations and a possibility of one human having all six. the rest is due to genes that define your resistance to tanning and diet, but primarily these. it isn't hard to imagine that animals have similar genes.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
But when humans first appeared in africa 100000 years ago, they would of all been black, having 6 black skin genes. There would of been no white ones.
There are many cases where animals evolve completely new colours to survive in new environments.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
100000 is debatable.
natural selection is real. it could be that, over the years, people w/ dark genes were preferred or better suited to survive and the white gene was simply bred out. they didn't gain dark genes, they simply lost their white genes. same thing but opposite must have happened to europeans.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Well for a start it would of been the other way round, as black people came first.
Secondly, that is evolution. Animals adapting to their environment by natural selection.
Yes, 100000 is debatable, its between 2500000 years and 100000 years since humans first appeared.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
how do you know which came first? fossils don't have skin. our bones look just like any other human's bones. the first humans were probably arabic colored.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Since humans first originated in central Africa, and everybody there is black, common sense suggests they were black 100000 years ago too.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
what? are you listening to yourself? why am I the one fighting for natural selection here? I'm the creationist! it is hot and sunny in africa. therefore, it is an asset to be black because you have more melanin in your skin. so if people had kids and some were lighter, and some were darker, then it stands to reason that the darker ones were better suited for the environment. you say it was 100000 years ago. that is a long time to breed out a simple thing like the light-skin gene.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
It happened the other way around.
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
proof?
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Actually the Black African hypothesis is based on studies of MC1R drift rates in isolated populations. It's how we know, for example, that Aboriginal Australians were part of one of the earliest departures from Africa.
Until the Bantu expansion about 5000 years ago, Africa had a very diverse range of skin colors. The San Bushman, the Pygmy people, and the North Africans are all very different skin tone from the Bantu. We would expect this from a diverse continent with common origins.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan
What brand of Creationism are you refering to?
If you are talking about Young Earth Creationism, I will tell you to look at the trees and count the rings, we got tree rings going way further back than six thousand years (iirc, 11 thousand years in 1 type of tree, and almost 100 thousand in another)
Old World Creationism, I will point to the fact that humans evolved from ancestral species (homo erectus).
And that is a fact, by the way, the theory part is the explanation
mhrby1985 2 years ago
@mhrby1985
I love how you throw the word "fact" around as if it has been proven that humans evolved from a lower species. classic evolutionist ignorance. in fact, evolution defies known natural laws about genetics.
tree rings are horrible calendars. true, the earth is probably closer to 11,000 years of age than 6,000, but tree rings sometimes form at other times than winter and the difference can add up the older the tree.
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
What natural laws of genetics does evolution violate?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan Yeah, I am, because it is a proven fact that we did so. You should really check things before you try and correct me for it.
Which natural laws is it you claim Evolution breaks? I can't wait to hear what kind of ancient debunked crap you are going to bring out on that one, it is kind of funny how some of you sound like broken records.
And tree rings is just easily aviable data that all can understand, there is plenty of evidence of the real age of the world is in the billions
mhrby1985 1 year ago
@mhrby1985
lol, silly person. first of all, it is physically impossible to prove something actually happened in the past that isn't happening now. don't believe me? prove right now that george washington existed.
evolution breaks the natural law that all mutations are either a loss of info (i.e. a fly born w/o wings) or an over repetition of old info (i.e. a fly born with seven legs).
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
"all mutations are either a loss of info"
There is no such law. We have only 26 letters, but how many ways can they be combined to create new words?
Likewise, proteins show what are called domains. The domains are frequently shuffled through gene fusions and transpositions, leading to new functions.
At least a dozen times in our ancestry, our entire genome became doubled in what is known as paleopolyploidy. Each of those doubled genes had a "backup", and were free to explore new functions.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
I give an example on my eye evolution video. The first opsins (light sensing proteins) were most likely a fusion of a transmembrane domain to a cryptochrome (light using) protein.
We frequently see evidence of the borrowing of an existing protein for a new purpose. The crystallin proteins in your eye that make up your lens still have the ability to act like liver proteins, processing lipids they will never have access to.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
Now, we humans could design a better system for the crystallin protein family. If it were me, I'd make it from a protein with a series of beta-sheets like collagen. It would be less prone to cataract that way. But the crystallins work fine for 5 or 6 decades, long enough to ensure reproduction, why would evolution want to keep our sight clear into our 80's?
If you prefer a divine Creator or Designer, then you need to explain why She chose for us to have cataracts at 60?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
you can't compare letters to proteins and DNA.
give up. evolution is dead. it has been for about a decade now. the only people who even cling to it anymore are these youtube fanatics who spend all their time debating w/ creationists. the only reason they still teach it in school is because they'd have to teach a religion if they didn't.
do you know how DNA rewrites itself? it doesn't randomly scramble the chemicals and it doesn't bring in other chemicals that don't belong.
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
I don't come here to debate. There is no scientific case against evolution. This is outreach and education.
I suggest you watch my video "The Light of Evolution". I talk about the work I am currently doing on prostate cancer diagnostics. I use evolution, on the macro level, every day in my development of medical diagnostics.
I don't really care what's TRUE, I just care what WORKS. Creationism is a dead end in science. It doesn't tell us anything. It's not going to save lives.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
Evolution, on the other hand, has and is making possible the unraveling of genetics of population, disease markers, infectious and emerging pathogen, and revealing to us a great deal about where we came from, and why we are the way we are.
I can't think of a single medical advancement made from the study of creationism. Can you?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan If a religion was shown to be true it would be taught in school as fact.
kevinscales 1 year ago
@kevinscales which one? don't we have freedom of religion in america? we can't teach kids that all other religions are trash. that would be cruel and a bit presumptuous of us, don't you think?
(p.s. it's Ironic because that's what we're doing in schools right now! lol)
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan However cruel it may be, if it's shown to be true and it's relevent to the lesson, it should be taught.
kevinscales 1 year ago
@kevinscales then why is there such thing as history class? prove right now that any of the Caesars existed. sure we have books and pictures of them, but we have those of God too and we don't have a "God class" (in secular schools).
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan Distinguishing between myths and truths in history involves having to build up as much evidence as possible. If somthing is seemingly impossible and there is no evidence for it (other than stories) then it is treated as myth. Evidence and plausibility are key. Religions don't have the same evidence for them that the roman leaders do.
kevinscales 1 year ago
@kevinscales you said "shown to be true," not "accepted as true" which is closer to the truth. just because there is evidence for something, doesn't mean it is true.
schools teach evolution because it is ACCEPTED as true, as it hasn't been SHOWN to be true. in fact, there isn't even evidence that it is true. it is an exaggeration of current scientific facts.
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan So which facts have been exaggerated? Why would so many scientists accept somthing as true without evidence. We are talking about scientists here, the most skeptical people on the planet when it comes to scientific claims. Read a book or two about the scientific method and about the evidence for evolution if your really interested.
kevinscales 1 year ago
@kevinscales Hold it. are you saying that you are putting your faith in people rather than observable facts? it sounds like you're saying that the reason you believe in evolution is because a lot of smart people do too.
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DRealfriknKeenan Of course I have to trust people who know more than me, there is a lot of information and I have limited time and interest, but i've looked into it as far as I can. My stance is to trust in those people as long as they give me no reason to not trust them. "it fits seamlessly w/ creation theory" - ocams razor cuts out creation theory. "come from a common ancestor w/o altering their their genetic code" - the genetic code has to be altered to get any difference.
kevinscales 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan Who do you have fix your car? A mechanic maybe?
How about your computer? Compuer tech maybe?
And your roof? Quite possibly a roofer?
Sounds like you might be putting alot of faith in people, who have little more then a vocational education. So why the hell would you not rely on FACTs from people who have spent 6 or more years studying specific fields?
3vi14n931 1 year ago
@3vi14n931 when the mechanic fixes my car, how do I know he did a good job? the car works. same with my computer and my roof.
I trust them to get the job done because I can actively test to see that they are right. however, science isn't that simple. you can't have two mechanics who disagree on how cars run. one of those people isn't a good mechanic. and it's plain to see who's right when you try out the car. not so w/ science or religion.
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan EXACTLY! You can verify what the mechanic does, You can verify what the tech and roofer do. You can VERIFY what science does. You cannot VERIFY what your god does. And since when is Religion Disagreeing with Science comparable to two mechanics disagreeing. They are completely different subjects! Religion requires FAITH (believing without knowing). Science requires EVIDENCE.
3vi14n931 1 year ago
@3vi14n931 right so "verify" evolution or show me the evidence. and "this creature kinda looks like this other one" doesn't count.
as for nylonase, they are still studying this "adaptation." perhaps there is a preexisting gene in the bacteria that some activated. besides, have you seen this bacteria? if you think having faith in something is so bad, why do you believe the claims of a group notorious for correcting themselves?
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan How about the multiple accounts of speciation, in the lab and out. Or our our ability to map genetics down to our common ancestors. Or the demonstrable effects of natural selection. Oh wait, here comes the ear plugging and the refulsal to actually look anything up.
BECAUSE, we are notorious for CORRECTING ourselves! With every correction we get that much closer to the reality of how things work! We don't PRETEND to have all the answers and then plug our ears!
3vi14n931 1 year ago
@3vi14n931
1: It currently isn't possible to map down to our earlier ancestors. if you call this covering my ears then sorry. many creatures do have common ancestors but these are all within reasonable limits. a fish doesn't turn into an amphibian no matter how close they are. we can theorize and speculate but that's where it ends.
besides, how do you account for all the claims of cold fusion over the years?
2: exactly. THEY (meaning educated scientists ie NOT you) correct faulty data
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan 1. So please with your scientific insight enlighten me, exactly what is the limit of genetic change? When does a creature say, "you know what, that is enough changing for me, I think Ill stop here."
1b. WTF does biology and evolution have to do with cold fusion?
1c. 2 Scientist claimed they conducted cold fusion, others tested and falsified it, they were then promptly shown the door for being sloppy!
2. Your right you must know that my BA in Biology means nothing.
3vi14n931 1 year ago
@3vi14n931 1: go back to your word example. vulcanologist (if it was a genetic code) could not become vulcanelogist or vulcanoelogist because the information "e" does not exist in the sequence. it could, however, become vulcannologist or vulcanlogist because that is a loss or repetition of existing data.
1b: it's faulty data that scientists and engineers have claimed but later was rejected.
1c: there have been more than two cases and doesn't that mean some evolutionist data could b sloppy?
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan 1. Link en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Gene_duplication
1b. Once again we correct our information, unlike people clinging to a bronze age book.
1c. Sloppy tests lead to sloppy data. The benefit of Evolutionary Biology is that the tests are done in real time in the world around us. In the exact environment they apply to, Without humans needing to intervene. All we have to do is observe!
3vi14n931 1 year ago
1: wikipedia isn't the most reliable site on the net but I read it anyway and I didn't see anything that I disagreed with. I know it isn't fair to ask for an example (especially since I just rejected nylonase) but w/ our limited understanding of genomes the best way to study evolution would be through evidence found in complex organisms.
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan No saying that we know so little about the Genome makes me a little angry. I think we know more about the genome then you may be aware of. For example are you aware we have mapped the ENTIRE human genome and we can do it in a matter of days if not hours now. Look up the International HapMap Project. Sry. I know I said the last post would be it, but this is a subject that has had my attention for some time now.
3vi14n931 1 year ago
@3vi14n931
1b: if a child with out any experience or education says that space exists, is he wrong? just because an idea doesn't change, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
2: rule #3 of the internet, dude. we are anonymous. unless I traced your youtube account to something like a email or facebook. theres no way that I know who the heck you are. even then how do I know you didn't fabricate that? I'm not too computer savvy.
and thats not the point of my argument. if a person with a PhD in genetics, and biology claimed that there was undeniable proof that evolution was an actual historical, event but couldn't show me evidence, he might as well be 5 years old
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan We might as well face the facts, If a room full of PHD's carried you to the fossils, drew you a map of the genetic code, or showed you every known speciation event ever recorded you would close your eyes and walk away. You will not concede to anything that does not go along with your story book. So in my final comment I will link some evidence. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".
3vi14n931 1 year ago
@3vi14n931
I know at least thirty religious people who believe in evolution. it doesn't really contradict a non-literal translation of genesis. right now, I am at the default position of not believing in evolution. why don't you believe that there is some all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible entity? it works if he does exist but that doesn't mean that he does, right? I just would like some substantial science or rational behind my physical beliefs
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan I completely understand skepticism on ANY subject, I am simply attempting to point you in the direction were you can find the information to make an informed and rational decision. If I offended, my apologies. Take care and best of luck with your search.
3vi14n931 1 year ago
@3vi14n931
no offense taken. I know how it is. there are tons of trolls on youtube who don't really know what they're talking about and you get sick and tired of meeting the virtual clones of the same ignoramus. I know I have. thanks for the research data. I'll get on that and next semester I'll take a genetics course. maybe I'll learn something.
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago
@DRealfriknKeenan
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Speciation
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Human_evolution
Links to scientific papers are on the bottom of the page if you don't want to trust Wikis word which is understandable.
3vi14n931 1 year ago
@kevinscales I have read books by evolutionists before. they always quote natural selection as undeniable evidence for evolution despite the fact that it fits seamlessly w/ creation theory. for example, the evolutionary tree:
it is easy to see that darwin's finches could have come from a common ancestor w/o altering their their genetic code; but evolutionists use it as evidence that the finches shared ancestors w/ other birds w/ completely different genetic codes.
DRealfriknKeenan 1 year ago