"It is easy to understand [Timothy Keller's] appeal." -The New York Times
"In a flood of bestsellers by skeptics and atheists...Keller stands out as an effective counterpoint and defender of the faith. The Reason for God makes a tight, accessible case for reasoned religious belief." -The Washington Post
"The Reason for God" - see more reviews @ amazon.com
I have a question: How can an intellectually honest person who is scientifically minded and committed to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD be an atheist rather than an agnostic? What am I missing here?
davidelmer How is it that all the principles we use to separate intentional cause from natural cause in the criminal laboratory are thrown out in the academic laboratory?
@RisingAtheists Am I to take it you feel superior to ignorant Bedouins? If their is a god, you do realize we are all just ignorant Bedouins, right? Sort of like when you're standing on the moon looking at the earth - you are unable to make a distinction between death valley and pike's peak.
@RisingAtheists Am I to take it you feel superior to ignorant Bedouins? If their is a god, you do realize we are all just ignorant Bedouins, right? Sort of like when you're standing on the moon looking at the earth - you are unable to make a distinction between death valley and pike's peak.
exactly, god makes a plant (The indian fern) with 1260 chromosomes, humans only have 46, and after doing that he shows us how divine he is by letting some ignorant bedouins in the desert write a book full of nonsense,,, yeah, right.
Here are two observable scientific facts: 1) The number of words in the 2009 Encyclopedia Britannica = 58 million 2) the number of base pair in the human genome = 3 billion. That is a billion with a B. That a bias against God exists should be a blinding flash of the obvious to any objective observer. King David wrote some 3000 years ago: "The fool has said in his heart "there is no god'" Psalms 53:1
"The Inner Life" got me into nanotechnology. I saw it while studying for an AP Bio test, and, when I tried to find it again, I stumbled onto nanotech sites, where I got hooked. I am extremely grateful to this professor for creating this movie, and I hope that he someday watches this video, sees this comment, and realizes just how much good influence he has had.
Even the cell is alive with purposeful activity, not just random actions, but actions with the purpose of keeping the cell alive. Evidence we were created. The only faith part is God being that creator.
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2/ The same was in the beginning with God. 3/ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4/ In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5/ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
I hate to be picky, but I couldn't help but notice the irony of hearing "scientifically accurate" as I watch the depiction of protein synthesis occurring in the absence of initiation factors (0:41).
Picture the following two interviews on Saturday Night Live.
First interview: Intelligent design proponent is ridiculed by scientist.
Second interview: A scientist that listens for sounds of intelligent life from outer space is questioned about how they know when they hear something they can identify as "intelligent" (as this video plays in the back ground)
Evolutionism claims the following can (and did) happen (replace [rats] with any animal you wish):
It claims populations of [rats] can evolve over generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer [rats] at all. Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and people are clearly no longer fish at all.
Fact: such a belief is not observable, and cannot be shown happening in actual test cases. Hence, not science! They can only give reasons they believe in it.
@ForumLight So if nobody directly observed a crime, it's "unscientific" to prosecute somebody for it? We can't directly observe things like fish turning into rats because of the timescales involved (not yet at least), but there's other evidence from fossil records, embryonic development, DNA, and more.
A crime has been observed and able to be shown (if need be) in test cases, so it makes sense to look at forensic evidence to determine if yet another crime had taken place in specific instances.. Huge contrast to fish to man evolution: not observable and not able to be shown in a single test case. So it's nonsense to make up a belief about it and pass it off as science, let alone fact, when it's never been observed or able to be shown in a single test case.
@ForumLight Ok, how about this: we can't directly observe atoms, they're simply too small to be seen. All we have is extremely complicated equipment that can give us data, which we interpret to support atomic theory. Is that also unscientific?
We can't observe gravity but can show repeatable test cases verifying that whatever it is, it is there. In like manner, we can see what atoms do in repeatable test cases. So what we claim about atoms is also science. Can't show a single observation or test case of fish to man evolution. But we can show that populations of [flies] (pick any animal you wish) only ever evolve into [flies] -falsifying fish to man evolution.
@ForumLight Ignoring the fact that we have observed speciation, it definitely doesn't falsify it anyway. The theory doesn't say it happens over the course of lab experiment, so no fruit fly test will disprove it any time soon. However, we do have all sorts of observations that support it. DNA injected by viruses that appears in one species also appears in all species theorized to descend from them. Vertebrates have similar bone structures even in limbs that have vastly different functions, etc.
Speciation falsifies fish to man evolution in that it's repeatedly observable and able to be shown in test cases that no matter how many generations go by, populations of [rats] (pick any animal you wish) NEVER eventually evolve into animals that are clearly no longer [rats] - they only EVER evolve into more [rats], even if they are a slightly different species of [rats].
Viruses evolving into other viruses is not an observation of the fish to man version of evolution.
Homology is not an observation of fish to man evolution, it's only the *belief* that similar bone structure *means* one evolved from the other. That belief can't be verified by actual observations of such things happen, or repeatable test cases. Not science.
@ForumLight No, I'm not saying that just because of any one of those observations evolution must be right, it's the fact that there are so many observations that are perfectly explained by evolution, and none that directly disprove it, that we are inclined to accept it as fact.
Sorry but an inclination to accept a belief doesn't make it science. Billions are "inclined to accept" that God exists - that doesn't make it science. Populations of [flies] (pick any animal you wish) are NEVER observed evolving over generations into (or from) animals that are clearly not [flies]. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and people are clearly no longer supposedly fish at all). Science falsifies evolutoin. You may offer an observation or test case to show otherwise.
@ForumLight Moron, speciation has been occurring over the course of the past 3.8 billion years, you think that in the puny infinitesimal segment of time (compared to geologic time) that science has even existed enough to try and observe these things is long enough for significant speciation to occur. The genetic evidence for evolution is overwhelming, from fossil genes to, vestigial structures, to the geological record of increasing species complexity over time. Try reading a book genius.
@loneknight100 Hello. Correction: you *believe* it's been going on for however long you say. Speciation has only ever shown us that populations of [finches] (pick any animal) only *ever* evolve into more [finches] no matter how many generations go bye - falsifying the fish to man story of evolutoin. Claiming you believe it happened anyway is storytelling, which becomes lying when it's called science.
@ForumLight Look at the fossil record showing increasing complexity with decreasing depth of rock. Look at the DNA evidence, that shows we still have the genes for tails, and other features of other species. Try reading a book other than the bible, and listening to someone other than your minister for your science you fucking ignorant shithead. You breed ignorance. You are a source or stupidity and ignorance. Try studying a hard science, or reading a book like "The Making of the Fittest."
@loneknight100 I think you should read people who r scientists who actually research against the evidence you mentioned. If you say people are narrow-mindeed, let me tell you that many scientists also find disillusion with evolution and turn to fight against it. There are 50-50 , 50% really believe in God versus 50% atheist & agnostics. So what do I say? I say it is not science that makes you not believe, it is something else. You can choose to follow the evidence that supports what you believe.
@vuhairick Just because the discovery institute has a propaganda machine that makes people like you believe there is a controversy among scientists about evolution, doesn't mean one actually exists. You should learn about the power of propaganda, and how it's being used to distort your worldview. I have worked with scientists of many stripes, biochemists, chemists, biologists, etc. They all KNOW that evolution has, and will continue to occur. There is no controversy except with laymen
@loneknight100 Well it is impressive that you know many scientists. btw, I am from a communist country so I know what the power of propaganda is like, friend. Scientific propaganda is more subtle!
@vuhairick There is no mechanism in science for propaganda. Peer reviewed journals do the opposite of propaganda, because they weed out any purely dogmatic views, and hone in on the truth, with peers often exposing the weakness of one person's hypothesis in the most callous manner. This also occurs within science departments, before papers are even submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Scientific papers are subject to severely critical review both before and after publication.
@loneknight100 Thanks, I am doing research myself so I know how subtle it is. It is the system of thinking and frankly, to contribute to the research work and get accepted, you have to follow certain kind of accepted trend. Nobel price for Chemistry for this year is one of great examples how different ideas from the trend are often scorned. Luckily, the winner's field can be shown definitely, else it is hard for him to fight against the traditional or much-to-say rigid trend of thought.
@ForumLight Talking to fucktards like you hurts my brain and makes me despair that there is any point in trying to talk some sense into the ignorant. The bottom line is that if you want to remain an outspoken ignorant shit like ForumLight, then nobody can save you from yourself.
I've heard evolution denying ministers on the radio repeatedly in recent weeks. I keep asking myself; "Why do these men of one book think they know anything at all about science?" Yet they persist in spouting ignorance.
@ForumLight And you obviously didn't understand the virus thing, I wasn't talking about viruses evolving, I was talking about an observation regarding the evolution of vertebrates which involves viruses. Maybe if you took a high school level biology course you would know that.
We've never observed or could see in repeatable test cases that viruses lead to populations of [rats] (pick any animal you wish) evolving over generations into (or from) animals that are clearly not [rats] - just the belief, yet again, that it leads to such things. It never has. Science shows this never happens.
Psalms 90:1-2 A Prayer of Moses the man of God. Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2/ Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
We actually analyze this video for fun in my cell biology class. It's actually a nice review to understand the mechanisms. In this report by ABC, the reporter makes the mechanisms look like magic, due to the disbelief of the reporter; despite the semi-explanation from Harvard.
@AFSamizdat Yeah, and it would've been pointless for the Harvard guy to try and explain that these processes are ruled by thermodynamics in the cell. For example the video shows these proteins all coming together simultaneously floating to just the right spot. It's illustrated this way to save time, and screen space, and for clarity, but really these self-assembling proteins are floating everywhere randomly, and when they happen to hit a binding spot on a growing fiber, they bind. It's not magic
@loneknight100 Yup. It's somewhat random however, because of transporters (cotransporters, antiporters etc.), and various concentrations of substances. A cell for the most part won't have a random protein in it for no reason. It was either made by the cell, or transported in, the rest is 'random' so to speak.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Something like this could not have evolved in a gazillion millennia, a creation needs a Creator. God created this out of nothing and sustains this from second to second. It is simply amazing.
So it makes more sense to you that a being that had the potential to create the cell (God) could just be created out of nothingness, but for the product (the cell) to exist, that's impossible and required a creator?
If a person believes nature is all their is, then the laws of science dictated everythiing must have a cause - hence they must believe a cell had a creator, that the big bang had a creator, and so on. Yet they ask what created God as if that refutes the notion of God. It doesn't. God is eternal. But if they reject God they are also rejecting the concept that anything can be eternal.
@RadioPej Nothingness itself is contradictive, friend. The video shows clearly there is Intelligence behind life. And this Intelligence can exist by itself. There is no such thing called "nothing" because if you say it out it becomes "something". Your existence itself is not from nothing. So God being created is itself also contradictive. Because if you admit that there cannot be "nothing" so there must be something, that something has to be self-existent itself.
And of course evolutionists want to believe all of this just happened by natural chance with chemicals just happening to self-assemble into such complex, purposeful life. A single cell is undeniable proof we were created, whether one wants to believe it was an advanced alien civilization or God.
not by chance. by favorable conditions, over an immense period of time. longer than we can fathom really. we only have ourselves as a template. whos to say the formation of simple amino acids isnt thermodynamically favorable in extreme conditions? theres lots of energy around... also, its valuable to note that this is a eukaryote... probably an advanced one such as one of our cells. either way, "cells" didnt appear like this.. they started out much simpler. proks dont have any organelles atall
@ForumLight You sir, are a moron. The video is accurate up to a point, it does not show Brownian motion, which is the random movement of molecules due to variations in temperature, nor concentration gradients that move molecules in certain directions. The video makes it appear that everything floats to just the right place at just the right time, but it doesn't. Many things simply float around randomly until they happen to bump into a binding site. Such is the case with self-assembling fibers.
@loneknight100 Sorry but your personal attacks only show you don't have a leg to stand on. If you want to believe all that came about by natural chance and such life was created by dead matter, believe what you wish. Until you provide an actual observation or repeatable test case of a living cell being created where there was no cell, it remains a belief (let alone a lie) that such a thing happened.
@ForumLight Well... there is the Miller-Urey experiment that imitated artificially the conditions and climate of early earth with the most basic periodic elements and compounds (you can look it up on wiki). Although it didn't end up creating living cells, it did generate a soup of things like amino acids and some fatty acids. Later the experiment was improved and evidence of nucleic acids being produced was also found. These types of experiment have been repeated a lot of times! ;)
@Dranzira "imitated artificially the conditions and climate of early earth" - correction: what they CLAIM and BELIEVE was the conditions and climate of their early earth. Huge difference: just more beliefs passed off as science.
And again a belief that "soup" would create life. Another belief dishonestly passed off as science.
Fish to man evolution and the beliefs that come before that continue to malign actual science.
@ForumLight Fair enough, but please remember that a lot of work has gone into predicting what early-earth's climate would be like and as scientist we don't just come to a "belief" on an off chance. The conditions in which these experiments took place might not be entirely accurate but they do show the possibility that given enough time & the right conditions, organic matter (maybe even a basic cell) can be generated from inorganic matter. You asked for an actual observation so I gave you one ;)
@Dranzira They've never shown a cell being created where there was NO cell. They just say "these building blocks COULD create a cell (they never show any such thing) and look! We were able to create these building blocks" - but those building blocks are not life and they still haven't shown the creation of a cell where there was none, yet they keep lying and claiming it's possible. =(
@Dranzira Organic matter CANNOT be generated from inorganic matter, that is not an observation because it has never been observed!!! Do some research, science has as many flaws as religion, Louis Pasture DISPROVED the theory of spontaneous generation in 1861 and that still stands after 150 years of advancements in science! The third tenet of cell biology (Virchow) states that cells can only arise from pre-existing cells. Both of these strongly dispute evolution yet we still ignore it.
@Debuction Nobody ignores Pasture's or Virchow's findings but they don't conclusively disprove evolution either. The fact is that nobody has run an experiment for a long enough time period to completely disprove or prove anything as far as the theories of Abiogenesis is concerned. And science may have many 'flaws' but at least we strive to find out if are claims can be proven or not unlike religion which plays on blind 'faith' and no evidence.
@Debuction I hate when people mix together the origin of life and evolution. NO ONE in the scientific world dispute evolution of organisms. When a bacteria develops resistance to an antibiotic, it has evolved. This happens all the time and is the easiest and fastest way to see evolution in action. What some (very few) scientists do dispute, is how life originated. Questions like when a cell started to reproduce itself with an endosymbiont still have to be proven and discussed more.
@ForumLight Looking at your other comments, I see that the major problem you have is with the "fish to man" theory. Just to be clear, as scientists we don't take that to be a hard cold fact nor do we believe in it like one would believe in god. It is a theory and thats all. Nobody should be claiming that it is the one truth. The only FACTS that studies have shown is that evolution occurs. Whether we truly evolved from 'fish' remains to be seen. If you can disprove it we would accept it gladly :)
@Dranzira Hello. You need to talk to other evolutionists - they claim the fish to man story of evolution is not only science, but that it's fact (both of which are false). And no, the type of evolution in the fish to man story of evolution has NEVER been shown to occur. Speciation, for example, that which IS science shows that populations of [finches] (pick any animal) only EVER evolve into more [finches] no matter how many generations go by, falsifying the fish to man story of evolution.
i find the reporter's lack of faith disturbing.
mattutubematt 3 weeks ago
If you want to hear what Eminem rapping over the music in this film sounds like, i've made a mashup:
youtube.com/watch?v=icQRnyCzUQE
skymashups 6 months ago
"It is easy to understand [Timothy Keller's] appeal." -The New York Times
"In a flood of bestsellers by skeptics and atheists...Keller stands out as an effective counterpoint and defender of the faith. The Reason for God makes a tight, accessible case for reasoned religious belief." -The Washington Post
"The Reason for God" - see more reviews @ amazon.com
davidelmer 8 months ago in playlist I'D
and ths is suppossed to come gradually from a rock!? lol
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a question: How can an intellectually honest person who is scientifically minded and committed to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD be an atheist rather than an agnostic? What am I missing here?
davidelmer 9 months ago in playlist I'D
This is the stuff we want to get out of the sack.
LordKaisen 10 months ago
davidelmer How is it that all the principles we use to separate intentional cause from natural cause in the criminal laboratory are thrown out in the academic laboratory?
davidelmer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RisingAtheists Am I to take it you feel superior to ignorant Bedouins? If their is a god, you do realize we are all just ignorant Bedouins, right? Sort of like when you're standing on the moon looking at the earth - you are unable to make a distinction between death valley and pike's peak.
davidelmer 1 year ago
@RisingAtheists Am I to take it you feel superior to ignorant Bedouins? If their is a god, you do realize we are all just ignorant Bedouins, right? Sort of like when you're standing on the moon looking at the earth - you are unable to make a distinction between death valley and pike's peak.
davidelmer 1 year ago
exactly, god makes a plant (The indian fern) with 1260 chromosomes, humans only have 46, and after doing that he shows us how divine he is by letting some ignorant bedouins in the desert write a book full of nonsense,,, yeah, right.
RisingAtheists 1 year ago
Here are two observable scientific facts: 1) The number of words in the 2009 Encyclopedia Britannica = 58 million 2) the number of base pair in the human genome = 3 billion. That is a billion with a B. That a bias against God exists should be a blinding flash of the obvious to any objective observer. King David wrote some 3000 years ago: "The fool has said in his heart "there is no god'" Psalms 53:1
davidelmer 1 year ago
I suddenly felt like watching T.V.
tangoYum 1 year ago
"The Inner Life" got me into nanotechnology. I saw it while studying for an AP Bio test, and, when I tried to find it again, I stumbled onto nanotech sites, where I got hooked. I am extremely grateful to this professor for creating this movie, and I hope that he someday watches this video, sees this comment, and realizes just how much good influence he has had.
htgnef 1 year ago
Comment removed
htgnef 1 year ago
Even the cell is alive with purposeful activity, not just random actions, but actions with the purpose of keeping the cell alive. Evidence we were created. The only faith part is God being that creator.
ForumLight 1 year ago
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2/ The same was in the beginning with God. 3/ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4/ In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5/ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
ForumLight 1 year ago
I hate to be picky, but I couldn't help but notice the irony of hearing "scientifically accurate" as I watch the depiction of protein synthesis occurring in the absence of initiation factors (0:41).
YurNotSpecial 1 year ago
Picture the following two interviews on Saturday Night Live.
First interview: Intelligent design proponent is ridiculed by scientist.
Second interview: A scientist that listens for sounds of intelligent life from outer space is questioned about how they know when they hear something they can identify as "intelligent" (as this video plays in the back ground)
davidelmer 1 year ago
Evolutionism claims the following can (and did) happen (replace [rats] with any animal you wish):
It claims populations of [rats] can evolve over generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer [rats] at all. Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and people are clearly no longer fish at all.
Fact: such a belief is not observable, and cannot be shown happening in actual test cases. Hence, not science! They can only give reasons they believe in it.
ForumLight 1 year ago
@ForumLight So if nobody directly observed a crime, it's "unscientific" to prosecute somebody for it? We can't directly observe things like fish turning into rats because of the timescales involved (not yet at least), but there's other evidence from fossil records, embryonic development, DNA, and more.
balderdash707 1 year ago
@balderdash707
A crime has been observed and able to be shown (if need be) in test cases, so it makes sense to look at forensic evidence to determine if yet another crime had taken place in specific instances.. Huge contrast to fish to man evolution: not observable and not able to be shown in a single test case. So it's nonsense to make up a belief about it and pass it off as science, let alone fact, when it's never been observed or able to be shown in a single test case.
ForumLight 1 year ago
@ForumLight Ok, how about this: we can't directly observe atoms, they're simply too small to be seen. All we have is extremely complicated equipment that can give us data, which we interpret to support atomic theory. Is that also unscientific?
balderdash707 1 year ago
@balderdash707
We can't observe gravity but can show repeatable test cases verifying that whatever it is, it is there. In like manner, we can see what atoms do in repeatable test cases. So what we claim about atoms is also science. Can't show a single observation or test case of fish to man evolution. But we can show that populations of [flies] (pick any animal you wish) only ever evolve into [flies] -falsifying fish to man evolution.
ForumLight 1 year ago
@ForumLight Ignoring the fact that we have observed speciation, it definitely doesn't falsify it anyway. The theory doesn't say it happens over the course of lab experiment, so no fruit fly test will disprove it any time soon. However, we do have all sorts of observations that support it. DNA injected by viruses that appears in one species also appears in all species theorized to descend from them. Vertebrates have similar bone structures even in limbs that have vastly different functions, etc.
balderdash707 1 year ago
@balderdash707
Speciation falsifies fish to man evolution in that it's repeatedly observable and able to be shown in test cases that no matter how many generations go by, populations of [rats] (pick any animal you wish) NEVER eventually evolve into animals that are clearly no longer [rats] - they only EVER evolve into more [rats], even if they are a slightly different species of [rats].
ForumLight 1 year ago
@balderdash707
Viruses evolving into other viruses is not an observation of the fish to man version of evolution.
Homology is not an observation of fish to man evolution, it's only the *belief* that similar bone structure *means* one evolved from the other. That belief can't be verified by actual observations of such things happen, or repeatable test cases. Not science.
ForumLight 1 year ago
@ForumLight No, I'm not saying that just because of any one of those observations evolution must be right, it's the fact that there are so many observations that are perfectly explained by evolution, and none that directly disprove it, that we are inclined to accept it as fact.
balderdash707 1 year ago
@balderdash707
Sorry but an inclination to accept a belief doesn't make it science. Billions are "inclined to accept" that God exists - that doesn't make it science. Populations of [flies] (pick any animal you wish) are NEVER observed evolving over generations into (or from) animals that are clearly not [flies]. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and people are clearly no longer supposedly fish at all). Science falsifies evolutoin. You may offer an observation or test case to show otherwise.
ForumLight 1 year ago
@ForumLight Moron, speciation has been occurring over the course of the past 3.8 billion years, you think that in the puny infinitesimal segment of time (compared to geologic time) that science has even existed enough to try and observe these things is long enough for significant speciation to occur. The genetic evidence for evolution is overwhelming, from fossil genes to, vestigial structures, to the geological record of increasing species complexity over time. Try reading a book genius.
loneknight100 1 year ago
@loneknight100 Hello. Correction: you *believe* it's been going on for however long you say. Speciation has only ever shown us that populations of [finches] (pick any animal) only *ever* evolve into more [finches] no matter how many generations go bye - falsifying the fish to man story of evolutoin. Claiming you believe it happened anyway is storytelling, which becomes lying when it's called science.
ForumLight 1 year ago
@ForumLight Look at the fossil record showing increasing complexity with decreasing depth of rock. Look at the DNA evidence, that shows we still have the genes for tails, and other features of other species. Try reading a book other than the bible, and listening to someone other than your minister for your science you fucking ignorant shithead. You breed ignorance. You are a source or stupidity and ignorance. Try studying a hard science, or reading a book like "The Making of the Fittest."
loneknight100 1 year ago
@loneknight100 I think you should read people who r scientists who actually research against the evidence you mentioned. If you say people are narrow-mindeed, let me tell you that many scientists also find disillusion with evolution and turn to fight against it. There are 50-50 , 50% really believe in God versus 50% atheist & agnostics. So what do I say? I say it is not science that makes you not believe, it is something else. You can choose to follow the evidence that supports what you believe.
vuhairick 1 week ago
@vuhairick Just because the discovery institute has a propaganda machine that makes people like you believe there is a controversy among scientists about evolution, doesn't mean one actually exists. You should learn about the power of propaganda, and how it's being used to distort your worldview. I have worked with scientists of many stripes, biochemists, chemists, biologists, etc. They all KNOW that evolution has, and will continue to occur. There is no controversy except with laymen
loneknight100 1 week ago
@loneknight100 Well it is impressive that you know many scientists. btw, I am from a communist country so I know what the power of propaganda is like, friend. Scientific propaganda is more subtle!
vuhairick 1 week ago
@vuhairick There is no mechanism in science for propaganda. Peer reviewed journals do the opposite of propaganda, because they weed out any purely dogmatic views, and hone in on the truth, with peers often exposing the weakness of one person's hypothesis in the most callous manner. This also occurs within science departments, before papers are even submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Scientific papers are subject to severely critical review both before and after publication.
loneknight100 1 week ago
@loneknight100 Thanks, I am doing research myself so I know how subtle it is. It is the system of thinking and frankly, to contribute to the research work and get accepted, you have to follow certain kind of accepted trend. Nobel price for Chemistry for this year is one of great examples how different ideas from the trend are often scorned. Luckily, the winner's field can be shown definitely, else it is hard for him to fight against the traditional or much-to-say rigid trend of thought.
vuhairick 1 week ago
@ForumLight Talking to fucktards like you hurts my brain and makes me despair that there is any point in trying to talk some sense into the ignorant. The bottom line is that if you want to remain an outspoken ignorant shit like ForumLight, then nobody can save you from yourself.
I've heard evolution denying ministers on the radio repeatedly in recent weeks. I keep asking myself; "Why do these men of one book think they know anything at all about science?" Yet they persist in spouting ignorance.
loneknight100 1 year ago
@ForumLight And you obviously didn't understand the virus thing, I wasn't talking about viruses evolving, I was talking about an observation regarding the evolution of vertebrates which involves viruses. Maybe if you took a high school level biology course you would know that.
balderdash707 1 year ago
@balderdash707
Ah I misread what you wrote. My apologies.
We've never observed or could see in repeatable test cases that viruses lead to populations of [rats] (pick any animal you wish) evolving over generations into (or from) animals that are clearly not [rats] - just the belief, yet again, that it leads to such things. It never has. Science shows this never happens.
ForumLight 1 year ago
Psalms 90:1-2 A Prayer of Moses the man of God. Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2/ Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
ForumLight 1 year ago
this is AWESOME!
tlast2O12dude 2 years ago
I made a video just like this in 2001.
cept mind had robert deniro and al pacino endlessly staring at eachother moving around without saying anything
mongoose100989 2 years ago
i already know about this. the vaculoues keep it warm.
mongoose100989 2 years ago
We actually analyze this video for fun in my cell biology class. It's actually a nice review to understand the mechanisms. In this report by ABC, the reporter makes the mechanisms look like magic, due to the disbelief of the reporter; despite the semi-explanation from Harvard.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago 8
@AFSamizdat Yeah, and it would've been pointless for the Harvard guy to try and explain that these processes are ruled by thermodynamics in the cell. For example the video shows these proteins all coming together simultaneously floating to just the right spot. It's illustrated this way to save time, and screen space, and for clarity, but really these self-assembling proteins are floating everywhere randomly, and when they happen to hit a binding spot on a growing fiber, they bind. It's not magic
loneknight100 1 year ago
@loneknight100 Yup. It's somewhat random however, because of transporters (cotransporters, antiporters etc.), and various concentrations of substances. A cell for the most part won't have a random protein in it for no reason. It was either made by the cell, or transported in, the rest is 'random' so to speak.
AFSamizdat 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Something like this could not have evolved in a gazillion millennia, a creation needs a Creator. God created this out of nothing and sustains this from second to second. It is simply amazing.
InternetRosebud 2 years ago
You're an idiot. Open your mind.
bhlutube 2 years ago
So it makes more sense to you that a being that had the potential to create the cell (God) could just be created out of nothingness, but for the product (the cell) to exist, that's impossible and required a creator?
RadioPej 2 years ago 14
@RadioPej
If a person believes nature is all their is, then the laws of science dictated everythiing must have a cause - hence they must believe a cell had a creator, that the big bang had a creator, and so on. Yet they ask what created God as if that refutes the notion of God. It doesn't. God is eternal. But if they reject God they are also rejecting the concept that anything can be eternal.
ForumLight 1 year ago
@RadioPej
why peoples are so selfish?
it almost like in old times when everybody thinking the earth is the center of the universe.
why it must be being ?
"created out of nothingness" what? it is not nothingness it called matter and nobody saying it was created in 10 minutes.
it's billions of years !
can you imagine billions of years! it is lot of time!
and if it was the being - who created that being? another being? are you call this "explanation"
odv000 1 year ago
@RadioPej Nothingness itself is contradictive, friend. The video shows clearly there is Intelligence behind life. And this Intelligence can exist by itself. There is no such thing called "nothing" because if you say it out it becomes "something". Your existence itself is not from nothing. So God being created is itself also contradictive. Because if you admit that there cannot be "nothing" so there must be something, that something has to be self-existent itself.
vuhairick 1 week ago
Wrong
IbeeejayI 2 years ago
I don't know why everyone thumbed down this comment about the Creator.
It's someone else's opinion, and it's probably important to them.
Both sides have plausible reasons.
Allyheartzz 2 years ago
And of course evolutionists want to believe all of this just happened by natural chance with chemicals just happening to self-assemble into such complex, purposeful life. A single cell is undeniable proof we were created, whether one wants to believe it was an advanced alien civilization or God.
ForumLight 2 years ago
not by chance. by favorable conditions, over an immense period of time. longer than we can fathom really. we only have ourselves as a template. whos to say the formation of simple amino acids isnt thermodynamically favorable in extreme conditions? theres lots of energy around... also, its valuable to note that this is a eukaryote... probably an advanced one such as one of our cells. either way, "cells" didnt appear like this.. they started out much simpler. proks dont have any organelles atall
ianbrooks 1 year ago
@ianbrooks
As I said: by *natural* chance.
ForumLight 1 year ago
@ForumLight You sir, are a moron. The video is accurate up to a point, it does not show Brownian motion, which is the random movement of molecules due to variations in temperature, nor concentration gradients that move molecules in certain directions. The video makes it appear that everything floats to just the right place at just the right time, but it doesn't. Many things simply float around randomly until they happen to bump into a binding site. Such is the case with self-assembling fibers.
loneknight100 1 year ago
@loneknight100 Sorry but your personal attacks only show you don't have a leg to stand on. If you want to believe all that came about by natural chance and such life was created by dead matter, believe what you wish. Until you provide an actual observation or repeatable test case of a living cell being created where there was no cell, it remains a belief (let alone a lie) that such a thing happened.
ForumLight 1 year ago
@ForumLight Well... there is the Miller-Urey experiment that imitated artificially the conditions and climate of early earth with the most basic periodic elements and compounds (you can look it up on wiki). Although it didn't end up creating living cells, it did generate a soup of things like amino acids and some fatty acids. Later the experiment was improved and evidence of nucleic acids being produced was also found. These types of experiment have been repeated a lot of times! ;)
Dranzira 1 year ago
@Dranzira "imitated artificially the conditions and climate of early earth" - correction: what they CLAIM and BELIEVE was the conditions and climate of their early earth. Huge difference: just more beliefs passed off as science.
And again a belief that "soup" would create life. Another belief dishonestly passed off as science.
Fish to man evolution and the beliefs that come before that continue to malign actual science.
ForumLight 10 months ago
@ForumLight Fair enough, but please remember that a lot of work has gone into predicting what early-earth's climate would be like and as scientist we don't just come to a "belief" on an off chance. The conditions in which these experiments took place might not be entirely accurate but they do show the possibility that given enough time & the right conditions, organic matter (maybe even a basic cell) can be generated from inorganic matter. You asked for an actual observation so I gave you one ;)
Dranzira 10 months ago
@Dranzira They've never shown a cell being created where there was NO cell. They just say "these building blocks COULD create a cell (they never show any such thing) and look! We were able to create these building blocks" - but those building blocks are not life and they still haven't shown the creation of a cell where there was none, yet they keep lying and claiming it's possible. =(
ForumLight 10 months ago
@Dranzira Organic matter CANNOT be generated from inorganic matter, that is not an observation because it has never been observed!!! Do some research, science has as many flaws as religion, Louis Pasture DISPROVED the theory of spontaneous generation in 1861 and that still stands after 150 years of advancements in science! The third tenet of cell biology (Virchow) states that cells can only arise from pre-existing cells. Both of these strongly dispute evolution yet we still ignore it.
Debuction 4 months ago
@Debuction Nobody ignores Pasture's or Virchow's findings but they don't conclusively disprove evolution either. The fact is that nobody has run an experiment for a long enough time period to completely disprove or prove anything as far as the theories of Abiogenesis is concerned. And science may have many 'flaws' but at least we strive to find out if are claims can be proven or not unlike religion which plays on blind 'faith' and no evidence.
Dranzira 4 months ago
@Debuction I hate when people mix together the origin of life and evolution. NO ONE in the scientific world dispute evolution of organisms. When a bacteria develops resistance to an antibiotic, it has evolved. This happens all the time and is the easiest and fastest way to see evolution in action. What some (very few) scientists do dispute, is how life originated. Questions like when a cell started to reproduce itself with an endosymbiont still have to be proven and discussed more.
mrsavage88 1 month ago
@ForumLight Looking at your other comments, I see that the major problem you have is with the "fish to man" theory. Just to be clear, as scientists we don't take that to be a hard cold fact nor do we believe in it like one would believe in god. It is a theory and thats all. Nobody should be claiming that it is the one truth. The only FACTS that studies have shown is that evolution occurs. Whether we truly evolved from 'fish' remains to be seen. If you can disprove it we would accept it gladly :)
Dranzira 10 months ago
@Dranzira Hello. You need to talk to other evolutionists - they claim the fish to man story of evolution is not only science, but that it's fact (both of which are false). And no, the type of evolution in the fish to man story of evolution has NEVER been shown to occur. Speciation, for example, that which IS science shows that populations of [finches] (pick any animal) only EVER evolve into more [finches] no matter how many generations go by, falsifying the fish to man story of evolution.
ForumLight 10 months ago
@ForumLight This video masks the role of randomness and thermodynamics that exists in these processes.
loneknight100 1 year ago