Never let a blond Fox reporter talk science. That include pronouncing the word physics. I bet she can't even spell that word. How can a person fuck it up like 3 times with in 2 min 30 secs.
I wonder if the biography of oppenheimer they put in the dna was paperback or hardback. lmao All they did was take an existing goat cell and give it cancer(a change to the dna). From scratch. lmao They work so hard to be smart and sound so stupid. Although I do like Michio, he should have sat this interview out. No wonder they could'nt get a biologist in there. Not even the one who supposedly created a cell from scratch. Do they mean they scratched the goat to get the cell.LMAO
This is big, but not that big. Their article in "Science" states that their synthesized DNA was inserted into an already living cell. This means that they did not start from scratch and create a new cell from pure chemicals. It is only a copy. What they have done is succeeded in adding fantastic amounts of organization to previously existing matter. Therefore, this is not "life" as life is really known.
this is excesevley amazing, i am 12 and this represents the begining of our game to be god, (well in the sense that god is nature without having essential counsiosuness) this wil mean, that we are cpapable of creating artificial life to send them in rockets that utilize acceleerating protons to explore and colonize the universe
She seems to mix up the words "physics" and "physicist" and not knowing when to use them. But she's hot so it's ok. But why the hell are they asking Dr. Kaku? They should be asking a Biologisct uh, Biology professor. Preferably the Biology uh, Biologist who is behind this!
@monej she´s asking to him because he belongs to the scientist comunity, and he knows all the scientist news. but if she wants a deepest investigations and answers she has to talk with a biology professor.
@seudotrofio I know who he is.. My question was rhetorical! He is a theoretical physicist and he happens to be "famous". Nonetheless, this reportage should've been with a biologist. That's only fair!
@OliverIskra oh I'm not sure maybe because he deserves it because he's been a genius his whole life and earned the right to be the top physicist in the world by studying hard and going to harvard and working 5 times as hard form there until now, so I'm not fuckin sure but i think that might be it..fuckin retards in todays society man, learn science and then talk about modern brainiacs
@spian Modern scientists tend to be experts in very specific fields of science. Regardless of whether or not he is the greatest physicist to grace our planet (he isn't) the fact remains that he will have very little technical and relevant knowledge on this.
@OliverIskra come on man give the man a break even if you not a expert it does not mean you cannot understand or teach it others most knowledge in science can be understood if taught properly . The reason I believe they use him so much is because he good at make complex things look simple and he express himself well. A lot of scientist cannot communicate very well
@midnightwatchman1 You do have a point. I just think they would have been better off finding an eloquent biologist, although you could argue that there aren't many of those.
Respond to this video... and all science is connected, so why not ask the smartest scientist overall? Please no more stupid questions, smart people watch this
@OliverIskra im curious as to what makes him an attention whore, i would imagine that he was invited to be interviewed, i doubt he called up fox news and ask to speak about the subject. what are ur thoughts as to why you would consider him an "attention whore"
As if you may know human DNA has 1 unique string which no other lifeform has on this planet.. Make you think if we can tinker with DNA maybe some other race has tinkert with a monkeys DNA and thier own to create intellegent life on this planet. And God saith, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.' godalien?
@BboyKeny Well that would explain alot, but only if the book was basically humans in awe of the aliens, and when they were told stuff they really didn't grasp alot of concepts and/or the aliens had to dumb it down for them or they didn't say much to us at all, because the humans that wrote that book got alot of scientific inaccuracies in it... furthermore it would explain the recent videos of that weird light thing that stopped right above that religious building in Jerusalem very recently...
why do they always start from cells and not molecules and atoms. starting from cells is still not artificial. you are just messing up the natural cell.
@restlesspride666 if you can't manipulate atoms and molecules then that shows how limited science is.so we should lower our ego and acknowledge God. He can.
Michio Kaku is way over exposed.. I lost respect for him when he started showing up on everything but Jersey Shore...he has been selling himself like a cheap hooker
That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Our current understanding of the compounds and conditions needed to actually create a life form is in its early infancy. Until a scientist can take dead inorganic matter and organize it into a new life form, such claims as this are premature.
This isn't exactly what they've made it out to be. All they've done is take organic compounds and a complete genome and put them together into a cell. This is by no means an organic genesis. The holy grail of organic chemistry is taking inorganic matter and organizing it into a life form. This is NO WHERE even remotely close to that goal. In fact, no one even has a clue how this could be done yet. That's not to say it can't be done, but at present it is beyond our ability.
@hordeforrlife I know you probably don't, but I also know there are people out there that would actually believe this, so please tell me just to be safe, you are joking right?
Pakistan and Iran?. Those shit holes of planet earth?. They could not scare superpowers if they tried for 10,000 years. They are atleast 500 years behined politically, and atleast 30 years behined millitarily. China on the other hand, no one would mess with them now...let alone if they created bio-cells.
@KingAdonisDNA If you are so smart as you think, why have you not been interviewed instead of Michio? How many books have you written to entitle your comments better than the others, jackass? No one needs to be a phd to know that if bacteria can be developed for specific purposes, there are great chances they will be used as biological weapons.
@efex2007 Yeah and I'm sure Pakistan and Iran will just obtain the technology with magic, and China is totally going to take over the world right? Wrong, China is all palsy walsy with america now and so they're not going to fuck with them or anyone else, especially since they are kind of getting pissed at korea and intend to move away from them, besides, their economy is based on the cheap crap they seel to every other country, if they took over america for example, they would just crumble.
The general population still hasn't fully grasp the scope of this achievement. We can now engineer life. We can make living self-multiplying machines that will have remarkable accomplishments in ecology and medicine.
@Galmozzi99 They used junk DNA, didn't you watch the video? They used random excerpts from James Joyce among others, this does the exact opposite to what you've claimed, it proves a living cell can be made from random nonsense as long as it's put together properly (chemically). You just pwn'd yourself.
Last time I checked, most of the wars in history were waged on the basis of differing religious principles. And I was being more facetious than serious when I mentioned a Utopia. Man in general is too flawed for a true Utopia.
@13lueFlamingo religion is just another excuse for war, its the humans and their nature that are the problem. If the religion is the same then they fight over sub-religion, if that is the same then they fight over language, if that is the same they fight over color. They just find a difference then fight for the superiority of that difference, its just our dumb nature.
Feel free to 'actually' direct your comment to me. Sadly, even though your hopes are high a utopian society would never be achieved by a race that believes they share ancestry with animals.
So evolution doesn't exist? You mean that thing that has a ridiculous amount of scientific PROOF is all rubbish? I'm so sorry to sound like a completely biased dick, but I don't see any reason to believe in ID. If we were created as we are now, then why does written history only go back so far? If cavemen were only smart enough to make primitive art on cave walls, then how did they become the species we are today? EVOLUTION! Their brains and bodies slowly EVOLVED.
1. Evolution does exist, never stated it doesn't. The only evolution proven thus far is limits within a genre. Genetic limits are the only facts science can prove, not ToE. Species adapt, evolve but don't become something other than their kind. You can believe it all you want, however your facts are purely extrapolative and all the 'proof' you claim is based on .6(less than 1%)knowledge man has of the earth's history. Yet man calls it undeniable proof.
2.If you don't want to believe in ID, that's all you, no ones forcing you. Proof of God is not found via the scientific method(nor is macroevolution for the very simple fact its not scientific, but rather philosophical), God is metaphysical and His proof is spiritual. Empiricism used to excuse the supernatural is a fail to begin with. Cavemen only exist with the help of artist rendering/modeling.
@h2omanz What about polyploidy plants? You can have a speciation event within one generation for some plants this is quite commonly observed. Essentially the number of chromosomes double in both gametes, by chance, and if those plants produce both gametes they can fuse forming a new species (it cannot interbreed with its parent species). Over time genetic mutations could accumulate simply due to genetic drift that can cause more changes. Most speciation occurs over way way longer periods of time
You stated metaphysics is bs, then jump to speciation(observable micro) among plants as proof of macro? as well, replaces the existence of a God? Using 'if' and 'could' in your comment is far from verification, when conjecture is taught as fact without substantiation it is not defined as science, rather it is a extrapolated philosophy and becomes a religion in itself. Off to work...
@h2omanz. Philosophy is the rational study of general subjects concerning which certainty cannot easily be established scientifically or by simple observation.
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
You argue evolution falls into the first category and not the second? I disagree with you. Believing in micro but not macro evolution is like believing in a cup of water but not a bathtub.
1.Evolution(adaptation, variation) is fact, ToE is not, only theorized. So far there is no testable evidence, no possible way to prove and/or has yet to be done to date, that is.. something eventually becoming something out of its genre. Science has proven the microlevel, it's observable, when large scale is crowned fact, when it is not observable, cannot pass the scientific method nor the definition of science, it is presumptuous, and yes, is philosophical. To believe macro is..
2.the result of time and micro on top of micro is faith based and is not scientific. Scientists work feverishly at fly labs worldwide for past 80yrs to produce genetic change. Yet with all the frankensteinism/forced radiation they can only produce 'flies'. Further more only endorsing genetic locks(limits/micro). With the use of xray speeding up the process at 15,000% allowing their generations to be equivalent to million's' of yrs via human terms, no change, still flies, same goes for..
3. the multi-million generations of bacterial observations and forced mutations.
Believing in the macrobased level of change is like assuming that if you pour water into a cup, given enough time, it will expand to the size of a bathtub.
@h2omanz It seems like you only view things that can be tested in a lab as scientific. But evidence from the past is used for all sorts of sciences such as geology and cosmology. Cosmology has the benefit of actually being able to see in the past due to the constancy of the speed of light but much is inferred. In principle macroevolution could be tested in the way you desire if human civilization and science lasts long enough to make such observations or would that not be acceptable either?
1. Actually no, I don't believe a fact can only be proven in a lab, as historical evidence is our best exhibit of the past. The history of geology, who was behind/established the first teachings and the presumptuousness of it all tells the tale. Dating devices are theoretical too, the age of the earth is unknown. Cosmology is the same, conclusive fact without evidence has already been established, as science can only describe, never prove.
2.To claim to have factual knowledge of the universe is farcicality..when we know a tiny fraction about our own planet and its history. Humans/earth won't be around long enough to witness if macro rings as a truth. I have no problem with facts, evidence and proofs. Its 1/2 truths, propaganda, hoaxes, lies, bias presumptions taught/sold as fact that I have a problem with.
@13lueFlamingo There is evidence to believe that cultural change and development was most important in the innovation of civilization. Language is our greatest "trait" and the reason human beings can do what we can. That is not to say that evolution did not play a role, it did, but you have to realize we are cultural beings too. And it is not to say that we are not still evolving, consider lactase production (lactose tolerance) and milk farming from cows = culture + gene selection.
@Chibling Language most definitively played a role in our cultural evolution . But one of the most important traits one that seperates us from other speices is our ability to reason . Well most of us anyway !
@ sinprelic I agree that you cannot prove non-existence. That was what I wanted to convey when I asked to prove a god doesn't exist. The sphere of religion lies in the realm of infallible. It does not need proof validating existence, it just needs the uncertainty of what could be.
I’m sorry, your thought processes are reasonable but misled.
@sinprelic I don't know which poll you got your 99% from but a poll on AAAS conducted two years ago found that 43% of physicists and astronomers believed in a higher power. Einstein did not think theology was a joke, he respected it. In his paper "Science and Religion" he wrote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." You can find many more essays and articles by Einstein of him sharing his own beliefs.
We can tailor make it to eat oil slicks. Exxon is very much interested in commercializing this... You cannot recall a life form. Is this synthetic bacteria already in the gulf of mexico?
@HighCardWins: Kaku believes in a god. Most theoretical physicist are spiritual and believe in a god that created the universe. The god Einstein and Kaku believes in is different in nature than the Christian God in many aspects but nonetheless they believe in some god existing.
Heres my challenge to you: Prove a god doesn't exist. Mind you that it is more likely that Kaku and Einstein are right than you are.
@inycxchris maybe 99% of physicists dont believe in, a definition as wide as it is, god. einstein thought theology was a joke, and he only used the word because of the poverty of the english language to describe the forces at play in the universe.
you are never called upon to prove a negative. that is a law of logic. you cannot prove non-existence. by your logic, unicorns and leprechauns exist by default. i'm sorry, your thought processes are preposterous.
This wont be good if perfected, soon the liberals will create artificial slaves for the sex and porno slave trade i wouldn't trust them with this invention, they are mad men.
@DMaustrap In greater good there will always somehow be greater evil that follows. Think of it like a positive parabola, y=x^2. It has both positive and negative values rising up at exponential rates. You can't do anything about it.
TERRIBLE REPORT!!!! who are the scientist that did this? where are the pic/vids? why ask kaku about what someones else did? when was this? what have they done with this sense? so many unanswer questions... FOX step your game up.
3.ones that already hardened their hearts and aren't going to repent. The Bible states Christ will judge the heart, I made the statement 'not my call' of an evil person that never heard of Christ. For Christ is the judge not me. US kills innocent, every war, today in Iraq, Afghanistan over 100,000 civilians in Iraq alone. Atheists alone have killed over 150 million in the last 100yrs, Hitler used evo theory to speed up natural selection. Your not smarter than me...what are we in grade school?am
4.I talking to a tweenager, get a grip. 150yrs of unrefutable(not a word, at least not in English, its irrefutable) science, high school textbooks say so...funny. Odd how many facts need constant revision, publishers make a fortune.
5.Heres why God killed the babies in the OT. The tribes were evil in every way: Sexual impurity(orgies,homosexuality,incest,pedophilia), beastiality, murder, and worse they burnt their own children ALIVE as sacrifice to their gods.This is why he has them killed, men,woman,children and sometimes the animals(due to beastiality defiled them) so as not one start their people again(unless taken as slaves and made pure)
7.Also he used them as examples to make Himself known by surrounding nations to save them from ending up like the murdered tribes(in a way He killed some so as to save more, through fear of His wrath/punishment).Most important He needed to purify the land for the coming of Christ. He warned the tribes for 400+yrs via the prophets to change or they would be killed. God was Just and gave the wicked their well deserved punishment.
@h2omanz Infants and young children don't deserve to die! God murdered them.
"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)
"... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." (Judges 21:10-12)
I don't think u hate my religion because of this but rather that it condemns your lifestyle/sin. Just another excuse you use. The people killed if u don't remember were tainted, murderers,committing incest, beastiality, homosexuality, burnt their own kids 'alive' to there gods, warned for 400 yrs to stop via prophets. These tribes including little ones 'needed' to be removed off the face of the earth. They were the worst of the worst, far more evil than any today. God was just.
I think you're a bit crazy+ religion is your crutch for not being willing to learn new things
Babies and little children aren't evil murderers. How many times do I have to point that out to you? You are OK with child murder, you just admitted it. You make no exceptions for innocent children being spared horrible suffering by being butchered. They deserved it, according to you.
You think incest is wrong? That's fucking hilarious. Cain had to have sex with his own mother and sisters.
@h2omanz I don't care the about reasons for it, it wasn't right. God had the power to save them from harm, instead, he had them murdered. You're ok with child murder, I get it.
6.'kinda like a weed or cancer,the whole thing must be removed' or it has a chance of growing back and intermingling with the chosen ones and other cultures. The culture would spread and infect all the lands,remember they are of EVIL and DESPISED by God, their ways may be a lifestyle today if it was not stopped.
1.Actually I have learned a lot by study, you proven you havent as you cut/paste, can't use your own words...why..because you dont know anything on the subjects weve discussed .If you didnt have google u wouldnt have got this far.
I explained the killing of the tribes to you twice in detail, but ur hatred of religion has already predetermined your hate. Did I also mention that the tribes ate their own kids/ raped them. already passing this tradition on to the young ones.
2.The Bible states that the kids/babies were already evil and participated in the evil acts. Kinda pointless to explain it to someone that has his fingers in his ears. If God spared the babies the bloodline of evil would continue..get it, prob not. And millions more babies would eventually be sacrificed via their rituals, regrowth of the bloodline, so its not me that thinks it would be ok to kill babies, as to spare them
3.would allow the line to continue. There isnt a country today that wouldnt think twice about dropping a bomb on those cities if that much evil persisted. Weeds=babies.lol another one over your head.
Nope, you hate religion because it tells you that being a prostitute is wrong. If anyone has deep dark secrets Im sure you have plenty being in your type of business..I can only imagine how embarrassing you guilt must be.
4. Originally incest didnt exist, this is the way to get the population multiply, no other way. After it was established it became law to end it by Moses.
U still wont give me an answer on the gay issue, keep googling and get back to me
@h2omanz dude shut the fuck up, religion is just some old bullshit
learn to think for yourself and make your own ideas instead of relying on some retarded book that makes no sense, i hope you dont have children because they would have a sad life
@h2omanz if you believe one word that's in the bible or any other religion book, i have nothing to discuss with you
i might "only" have a degree in fine arts, but i can give you this advice: trying to argue on the internet is sad as fuck my friend, stop wasting your time and other peoples time, nobodys gonna believe in your religion bullshit, thanks
1. Thanx! for your foolish assumption. I commented on this post about how man will muck up such a discovery, as it will fall into the wrong hands. I never stated a word of religion. Others came and criticized me. I am not trying to convert anyone. Yeah it shows you havn only an art degree. I think I'll pass on your advice of how to spend time, since you spent 10hrs playing with children's building blocks. And then sadly spending more time making and posting a vid of it.
2.You don't know anything about religion/God, go back to the blocks, more your style, this post is not your place. As Im sure utube has some more adequate vids for u. If you don't want to discuss anything with me, keep your promise and be done.
@h2omanz This is a science video, why are you here? Banana Boy Ray Cumfart or VenomFagX is more your style.
U didn't answer my question. Without invoking the supernatural to explain it, how did animals that are on islands, that can't swim and are thousands of miles away, get to the Ark?
I'm waiting for an answer. If you say anything about God, I am done with you.
@h2omanz I understood your stupid weeds analogy, idiot. My response obviously went over your head.
In context of your dumb analogy abouts weeds needing to be ripped out, babies and little children don't equate to "weeds" and don't deserve death under any scenario.
I'm not a prostitute moron. It's called humor. Are you to stupid to realize that my entire profile page is just jokes? You have brought that up a couple of times, so, I guess you are to stupid to realize when someone is joking.
1.So you never said anything before( about being a prostitute), when I mentioned it like 5-6 times, why only now? Yeah I guess your right it is all a joke. destroyn religion...your funny. You cant even type your own replies to your own religion.
It is great to site published material, give links. But if you rely on their words(exact words) for answers in our discussion. It fails. Again, and again if I wanted to read a book I wouldn't be talking to you.
@h2omanz How many times must I tell you, atheism is not a religion. The definition is: the belief no god/gods exist. Your argument is the same as saying NOT playing basketball is a sport. Dumb
I have given you links, you just say they're not worth reading
I'm not a scientist. From my own study though, I'm aware of the evidence supporting evolution, age of Earth, etc. When I direct u to that information, u put the creationist's blindfold on and dimiss it.
I never said atheism is a religion. Evolutionist are religious.
Nope, I actually read all you posted.
LoL..check your PM..stop with your nonsense. I am here because I follow science, this is real science. You see it is provable, unlike your so called science. Ray cumfart...your the best.
2. Or your done with me? Is that a promise, then end it. You are the one that can make that happen. Not sure if you know the other comment wasnt for you.
@HighCardWins Because you are a conscience being with thoughts and morals (hopefully), you are not a computer who cannot do something without being programmed to do so first, you do not run off of nothing but 1's and 0's. Because humans are the only beings on this planet smart enough to think of ways God doesn't exist. Because a chimp cannot even say theoretical physics. Prove he doesn't exist, because this and your comment didn't
@TheMetalGuy852 I'm a pantheist/atheist. I only do not believe in a personal god or a god of prayer. That's my beliefs.
Asking me to prove something doesn't exist is a loaded question. You can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist either, though I think many people know the story's origins and know Santa is make-believe.
Do you know there is a gene for language? Look it up. Our ability to speak is a product of evolution not a gift from some god.
@HighCardWins Prove a God doesn't exist. You can't do it either. The evidence up to and including this video would suggest that the creation of life or modification of life requires intelligent design, not chaos. Of course understanding such concepts requires intelligence as well....
@h2omanz Like I said, when having a discussion of science, it's ok to site published material to answers your ignorant questions. But like you said, it's not worth reading. Proof you don't want answers and you are happy to stay delusional.
I don't need science to prove that your beliefs are ridiculous. Just simple logic.
Without invoking anything supernatural to explain it, how did animals that are on islands, can't swim and are thousands of miles away, arrive at the Ark?
@h2omanz You believe little children ,who are abused ,should be killed so they won't grow to be murderers.
If God took them out of that enviornment, they wouldn't grow up to be bad people. This shows God didn't have mercy for little children, yet, he claims to be omnibenevolent. More evidence that your religion is primitive illogical nonsense.
If God told you told you to kill infants, would you do it?
@pbmdh do you have any clue as to what your saying? All plants, algae and many bacteria "eat" CO2, and have already reduced the amount in the atmosphere to a mere fraction of what it was at earths origin. These additional bacteria would have "suicide genes" built in, meaning they can't survive without the correct cocktail of chemicals supplied by man. If their actions need to be curtailed, then less of the cocktail is supplied. And should we be pumping out CO2 unless we know how to control it?
NOTICE....THE MENTION OF 'EXXON/MOBILE'....THAT MEANS ITS OWNED BY THE 'ROCKEFELLERS' AND ANY GOOD THAT WOULD COME FROM THIS WILL BE BURIED....AND ALL ITS BAD USES WILL BE MANIFESTED TO HUMANITY TO FURTHER THE ROCKEFELLERS OBSESSION WITH DEPOPULATION AND A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT....IF THE STUPID BRAINWASHED SPOILED BRAT PUBLIC IN AMERICA KNEW WHAT THE UBER RICH OF THE WORLD WAS WORKING TOWARD...THEY'D SHIT!!
The beginning of the end. Man messing with something he knows little about. The future implications of such manipulation of natural cells will more than likely be our downfall. Great things can be achieved(biofuels, reverse disease etc..) but it will eventually fall into the hands of Dr. Evil.....Fricken ill tempered bass
@h2omanz Question is, now that it exists, how can you maximise its potential whilst minimising the risks. Speaking of which, that reminds me of most of human technologies.
@h2omanz All species go extinct one way or another, although you are right in mans ability to tinker with "gaia" far more than any other species before hand. How do you define the success of a species, even if humans lived only until tomorrow, our accomplishments have far exceeded those of any other organism. We (crudely) predict the future, invented mathmatics, split the atom, and can control the course of evolution. "Not bad for a bipedal ape".
well not really wanting to debate our start, but how would bipedalism be a benefit over quadrupedalism, as it is slower and is more of a devolve than an evolve. I dont believe in common ancestry.
@h2omanz There are numerous advantages, the most obvious being that a bipedal animal can use two arms to manipulate tools. An animal that must use its front limbs for support can't cut down a tree using an axe, or throw a spear whilst running. But that wasn't my point, my point was that humans have acheived so much in the 200,000 years since our appearance onto this earth. Bipedal ape was merely a way of describing us.
1.Quadropeds are faster and more stable, and are at a huge advantage to the slower locomotion of humans,which in fact makes man the most vulnerable target on earth against enemies. Hardly an 'upgrade'. There is no proof of an intermediate bi-quad, it is impossible for the transition. There's nothing scientific with this claim.
2.My whole point and no offense is that there is a reason a common ancestor can't/won't be found..it doesn't exist. 5,000-7,000 various extinct ape skulls provide plenty of filler to keep the dream of ToE alive. Real science provides proof and doesn't assume. ToE fails the scientific definition.
@h2omanz 1.Humans don't need to run fast. Can you think of any other living thing capable of launching anything more complex than poisonous spit. We can launch rocks, spears, arrows, bullets and nuclear missiles. We don't need to run from a lion when we can shoot it, we don't need to outrun gazelle, we just shoot that too. Obviously running fast is an advantage, but we don't need to, using our hands is a bigger one. Besides we can travel faster than sound, I'd say that trumps the pesky cheetah.
1. Yeah we can do all that because we are not related. My point is why man would find the need for bipedalism in the first place:Bipedilsm(according to ToE) occurred millions of years prior the first tool or use of a one. To develop a useless, awkward
crude bipedalism over a more productive quad stride? It would and be counterproductive, not a natural advantage. Did nature know that eventually this clumsy transition for a million yrs would be of beneficial? Hardly
@h2omanz 1. As you clearly can't link the ideas ancient man used to develop new breeds of animal and plant (arificial slection) , with a century old theory (natural selection) that withstood the test of time, this is wasted. Religious beliefs survive because they tell us what we want to hear, that we are special. I would like nothing better than to believe this is not all I am. Sadly believing something does not make it true. We atheists accept this, whilst you bigots argue about "the science".
1.Sadly when one draws their conclusions based on bias one-sided study, this forms an illogical conclusion. I have studied religion, science for 20+yrs. I am no more a bigot than you as you rely on faith that man has common with priors. One who is religious and to label them uneducated or anti science is daft, I follow peer and published works. I know what is science and what is psuedoscience. The claims of ToE is what actually opened interest in my years of personal study.
2. I have weighed the evidences bias free and drawn my conclusion based on what both sides present/claim. You have accepted the claims of what you are told as fact w/o study of anything outside this bias field.
I meant rock, primordial soup. The claim that real science proves impossible. All life shares dna true and to use this as proof of common descent can easily and logically be claimed as a blueprint of created beings.If dna is evidence of our closeness to apes then why this..
3.There are two species of flies (Drosophila) that look alike but have only 25 percent of their DNA sequences in common. Yet the DNA of humans and chimpanzees share 93ish percent. This means the DNA of two virtually identical flies is 30 times more different than that between humans and chimpanzees.
Dna means nothing, fruit flies have almost the same in common with us as do apes(90's), pumkins 75%, bananas 50%, this is not proof of either claim.
@h2omanz 1 I won't bother to reply to many more of these, they are falling on deaf ears. Is Creationism taught as a science at any world class research university? Your statement about Drosophila shows your ignorance. Drosopila is now being broken down after the revelations that the genus contains flies that are not related closely enough to warrant their grouping. I noticed you havn't touched on the other biochemical similarities. I myself am studying Biochemistry, don't try to warp the facts.
Warp facts?lol, A 16 yr old studying biochem, impressive... The fact that creationism isnt taught is because of the 20's fraudulent/laughable evidence presented to sway the world into the illusion of common descent, and who funds this universities(govern..go figure!) Im glad you have teachers that tell you what is fact as you seem not capable on your own. Nor the years to do so.The flies, you missed the point, of the visual identity vs the dna. See if you can keep your promise and not reply.
This has been flagged as spam show
Never let a blond Fox reporter talk science. That include pronouncing the word physics. I bet she can't even spell that word. How can a person fuck it up like 3 times with in 2 min 30 secs.
JavaLuCpp 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
JavaLuCpp 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Anybody noticed her IQ somewhere
RemusLt 1 month ago
I wonder if the biography of oppenheimer they put in the dna was paperback or hardback. lmao All they did was take an existing goat cell and give it cancer(a change to the dna). From scratch. lmao They work so hard to be smart and sound so stupid. Although I do like Michio, he should have sat this interview out. No wonder they could'nt get a biologist in there. Not even the one who supposedly created a cell from scratch. Do they mean they scratched the goat to get the cell.LMAO
geakub 1 month ago
This is big, but not that big. Their article in "Science" states that their synthesized DNA was inserted into an already living cell. This means that they did not start from scratch and create a new cell from pure chemicals. It is only a copy. What they have done is succeeded in adding fantastic amounts of organization to previously existing matter. Therefore, this is not "life" as life is really known.
TheHistoryguy10 2 months ago
is everything a game changer for michio? come on!!
Shackize 2 months ago
This woman is trying to act stupid.
JapanLessons 2 months ago
this is excesevley amazing, i am 12 and this represents the begining of our game to be god, (well in the sense that god is nature without having essential counsiosuness) this wil mean, that we are cpapable of creating artificial life to send them in rockets that utilize acceleerating protons to explore and colonize the universe
nicoeste8765 3 months ago
and god said all who shall suck my dick, shall make life.
MadManDot 3 months ago
we tailor make it to eat dick :O noway
MadManDot 3 months ago
CO2 isnt really the big cause of global warming right? water vapor is an even bigger green house gas there is only 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere
Shift4chizzle 3 months ago
She seems to mix up the words "physics" and "physicist" and not knowing when to use them. But she's hot so it's ok. But why the hell are they asking Dr. Kaku? They should be asking a Biologisct uh, Biology professor. Preferably the Biology uh, Biologist who is behind this!
monej 3 months ago
@monej she´s asking to him because he belongs to the scientist comunity, and he knows all the scientist news. but if she wants a deepest investigations and answers she has to talk with a biology professor.
seudotrofio 2 months ago
@seudotrofio I know who he is.. My question was rhetorical! He is a theoretical physicist and he happens to be "famous". Nonetheless, this reportage should've been with a biologist. That's only fair!
monej 2 months ago
Because we can, should we? Im not so sure.
vtxphantom 3 months ago
The Anunnaki were the Masters Of Genetics, they first create man 6000 bc!!!
therhythmslave1 4 months ago
@therhythmslave1 modern Humans have existed for 200,000 years sir...
IronicAtheist 4 months ago
MASSIVE BREAKTHROUGH IN BIOLOGY!?
Let's ask an attentionwhore theoretical physicist instead of a biologist.
OliverIskra 5 months ago 11
@OliverIskra oh I'm not sure maybe because he deserves it because he's been a genius his whole life and earned the right to be the top physicist in the world by studying hard and going to harvard and working 5 times as hard form there until now, so I'm not fuckin sure but i think that might be it..fuckin retards in todays society man, learn science and then talk about modern brainiacs
spian 4 months ago
@spian Modern scientists tend to be experts in very specific fields of science. Regardless of whether or not he is the greatest physicist to grace our planet (he isn't) the fact remains that he will have very little technical and relevant knowledge on this.
OliverIskra 4 months ago
@OliverIskra come on man give the man a break even if you not a expert it does not mean you cannot understand or teach it others most knowledge in science can be understood if taught properly . The reason I believe they use him so much is because he good at make complex things look simple and he express himself well. A lot of scientist cannot communicate very well
midnightwatchman1 1 month ago
@midnightwatchman1 You do have a point. I just think they would have been better off finding an eloquent biologist, although you could argue that there aren't many of those.
OliverIskra 1 month ago
@OliverIskra youre an idiot
500205 1 month ago
Respond to this video... and all science is connected, so why not ask the smartest scientist overall? Please no more stupid questions, smart people watch this
spian 4 months ago
@OliverIskra im curious as to what makes him an attention whore, i would imagine that he was invited to be interviewed, i doubt he called up fox news and ask to speak about the subject. what are ur thoughts as to why you would consider him an "attention whore"
brycehoff 3 months ago
@OliverIskra he still kinda knows what he's talking about but yeah i dotn know why they got him on the show, maybe they are big fans of him lol
Shift4chizzle 3 months ago
As if you may know human DNA has 1 unique string which no other lifeform has on this planet.. Make you think if we can tinker with DNA maybe some other race has tinkert with a monkeys DNA and thier own to create intellegent life on this planet. And God saith, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.' godalien?
BboyKeny 5 months ago
@BboyKeny :o you speak to elves?
restlesspride666 5 months ago
@BboyKeny Well that would explain alot, but only if the book was basically humans in awe of the aliens, and when they were told stuff they really didn't grasp alot of concepts and/or the aliens had to dumb it down for them or they didn't say much to us at all, because the humans that wrote that book got alot of scientific inaccuracies in it... furthermore it would explain the recent videos of that weird light thing that stopped right above that religious building in Jerusalem very recently...
IronicAtheist 4 months ago
AND THEN THEY FUCKED
cooljunkproductions 5 months ago
why do they always start from cells and not molecules and atoms. starting from cells is still not artificial. you are just messing up the natural cell.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike LOL. Do you know what a molecule is? Do you have an instrument small enough to manipulate atoms?
restlesspride666 5 months ago
@restlesspride666 if you can't manipulate atoms and molecules then that shows how limited science is.so we should lower our ego and acknowledge God. He can.
swandike 5 months ago
@swandike lol
MidoriFan10 4 months ago
This chick is not aware of the word physicist, is she?
debjyotichakraborty 6 months ago
2:31...kaku totally checked out the gul
samgondal 6 months ago
Michio Kaku is way over exposed.. I lost respect for him when he started showing up on everything but Jersey Shore...he has been selling himself like a cheap hooker
xadam2dudex 6 months ago
That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Our current understanding of the compounds and conditions needed to actually create a life form is in its early infancy. Until a scientist can take dead inorganic matter and organize it into a new life form, such claims as this are premature.
gurumagoo 6 months ago
This isn't exactly what they've made it out to be. All they've done is take organic compounds and a complete genome and put them together into a cell. This is by no means an organic genesis. The holy grail of organic chemistry is taking inorganic matter and organizing it into a life form. This is NO WHERE even remotely close to that goal. In fact, no one even has a clue how this could be done yet. That's not to say it can't be done, but at present it is beyond our ability.
gurumagoo 6 months ago
so cloning possible now? O.o
iveayu 6 months ago
It was built with human DNA...really... WRONG. Stupid fox always fucking up the facts.
Chibling 7 months ago
@hordeforrlife I know you probably don't, but I also know there are people out there that would actually believe this, so please tell me just to be safe, you are joking right?
KingAdonisDNA 7 months ago
Screw Ethics and morals! For science..you monster. -GLaDOS
tjinga2u1 8 months ago
soon we will hear on the news, dont mess with pakistan, iran or china, they have developed synthetic bio-cells that can destroy the planet.
efex2007 8 months ago
@efex2007
Pakistan and Iran?. Those shit holes of planet earth?. They could not scare superpowers if they tried for 10,000 years. They are atleast 500 years behined politically, and atleast 30 years behined millitarily. China on the other hand, no one would mess with them now...let alone if they created bio-cells.
MrDeano324 7 months ago
@efex2007 That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, you don't know anything about biochemics or their laws do you?
KingAdonisDNA 7 months ago
@KingAdonisDNA If you are so smart as you think, why have you not been interviewed instead of Michio? How many books have you written to entitle your comments better than the others, jackass? No one needs to be a phd to know that if bacteria can be developed for specific purposes, there are great chances they will be used as biological weapons.
efex2007 7 months ago
@efex2007 Yeah and I'm sure Pakistan and Iran will just obtain the technology with magic, and China is totally going to take over the world right? Wrong, China is all palsy walsy with america now and so they're not going to fuck with them or anyone else, especially since they are kind of getting pissed at korea and intend to move away from them, besides, their economy is based on the cheap crap they seel to every other country, if they took over america for example, they would just crumble.
KingAdonisDNA 7 months ago
@efex2007 Oh and uh, not to mention that countries aren't even fucking allowed to use chemical/bio-warfare, you dumb-ass.
KingAdonisDNA 7 months ago
The general population still hasn't fully grasp the scope of this achievement. We can now engineer life. We can make living self-multiplying machines that will have remarkable accomplishments in ecology and medicine.
SpaceChronologyCom 8 months ago
Excellent evidence that intelligent information, direction & design is necessary to create life. God & science both win.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
@Galmozzi99 They used junk DNA, didn't you watch the video? They used random excerpts from James Joyce among others, this does the exact opposite to what you've claimed, it proves a living cell can be made from random nonsense as long as it's put together properly (chemically). You just pwn'd yourself.
SecularityNow 8 months ago
@Galmozzi99 Lol, no it's not.
KingAdonisDNA 7 months ago
@h20manz
Religious fanatics like yourself are the reason why mankind can never achieve a Utopian society. Thanks.
13lueFlamingo 9 months ago
@13lueFlamingo lol yes:)
esraretin 9 months ago
@13lueFlamingo lmao so capitalists that wage war for money and then blame religion will create utopia?
digerpaji 8 months ago
@digerpaji
Last time I checked, most of the wars in history were waged on the basis of differing religious principles. And I was being more facetious than serious when I mentioned a Utopia. Man in general is too flawed for a true Utopia.
13lueFlamingo 7 months ago
@13lueFlamingo religion is just another excuse for war, its the humans and their nature that are the problem. If the religion is the same then they fight over sub-religion, if that is the same then they fight over language, if that is the same they fight over color. They just find a difference then fight for the superiority of that difference, its just our dumb nature.
digerpaji 7 months ago
@13lueFlamingo
Feel free to 'actually' direct your comment to me. Sadly, even though your hopes are high a utopian society would never be achieved by a race that believes they share ancestry with animals.
h2omanz 7 months ago
@h2omanz
So evolution doesn't exist? You mean that thing that has a ridiculous amount of scientific PROOF is all rubbish? I'm so sorry to sound like a completely biased dick, but I don't see any reason to believe in ID. If we were created as we are now, then why does written history only go back so far? If cavemen were only smart enough to make primitive art on cave walls, then how did they become the species we are today? EVOLUTION! Their brains and bodies slowly EVOLVED.
13lueFlamingo 7 months ago
@13lueFlamingo
1. Evolution does exist, never stated it doesn't. The only evolution proven thus far is limits within a genre. Genetic limits are the only facts science can prove, not ToE. Species adapt, evolve but don't become something other than their kind. You can believe it all you want, however your facts are purely extrapolative and all the 'proof' you claim is based on .6(less than 1%)knowledge man has of the earth's history. Yet man calls it undeniable proof.
h2omanz 7 months ago
2.If you don't want to believe in ID, that's all you, no ones forcing you. Proof of God is not found via the scientific method(nor is macroevolution for the very simple fact its not scientific, but rather philosophical), God is metaphysical and His proof is spiritual. Empiricism used to excuse the supernatural is a fail to begin with. Cavemen only exist with the help of artist rendering/modeling.
h2omanz 7 months ago
@h2omanz Replace metaphysical, spiritual and supernatural with bullshit and I agree with you more.
Chibling 7 months ago
@Chibling
If I agreed with that we'd both be wrong.
h2omanz 7 months ago
@h2omanz What about polyploidy plants? You can have a speciation event within one generation for some plants this is quite commonly observed. Essentially the number of chromosomes double in both gametes, by chance, and if those plants produce both gametes they can fuse forming a new species (it cannot interbreed with its parent species). Over time genetic mutations could accumulate simply due to genetic drift that can cause more changes. Most speciation occurs over way way longer periods of time
Chibling 7 months ago
@Chibling
You stated metaphysics is bs, then jump to speciation(observable micro) among plants as proof of macro? as well, replaces the existence of a God? Using 'if' and 'could' in your comment is far from verification, when conjecture is taught as fact without substantiation it is not defined as science, rather it is a extrapolated philosophy and becomes a religion in itself. Off to work...
h2omanz 7 months ago
@h2omanz. Philosophy is the rational study of general subjects concerning which certainty cannot easily be established scientifically or by simple observation.
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
You argue evolution falls into the first category and not the second? I disagree with you. Believing in micro but not macro evolution is like believing in a cup of water but not a bathtub.
Chibling 7 months ago
@Chibling
1.Evolution(adaptation, variation) is fact, ToE is not, only theorized. So far there is no testable evidence, no possible way to prove and/or has yet to be done to date, that is.. something eventually becoming something out of its genre. Science has proven the microlevel, it's observable, when large scale is crowned fact, when it is not observable, cannot pass the scientific method nor the definition of science, it is presumptuous, and yes, is philosophical. To believe macro is..
h2omanz 7 months ago
2.the result of time and micro on top of micro is faith based and is not scientific. Scientists work feverishly at fly labs worldwide for past 80yrs to produce genetic change. Yet with all the frankensteinism/forced radiation they can only produce 'flies'. Further more only endorsing genetic locks(limits/micro). With the use of xray speeding up the process at 15,000% allowing their generations to be equivalent to million's' of yrs via human terms, no change, still flies, same goes for..
h2omanz 7 months ago
3. the multi-million generations of bacterial observations and forced mutations.
Believing in the macrobased level of change is like assuming that if you pour water into a cup, given enough time, it will expand to the size of a bathtub.
h2omanz 7 months ago
@h2omanz It seems like you only view things that can be tested in a lab as scientific. But evidence from the past is used for all sorts of sciences such as geology and cosmology. Cosmology has the benefit of actually being able to see in the past due to the constancy of the speed of light but much is inferred. In principle macroevolution could be tested in the way you desire if human civilization and science lasts long enough to make such observations or would that not be acceptable either?
Chibling 7 months ago
@Chibling
1. Actually no, I don't believe a fact can only be proven in a lab, as historical evidence is our best exhibit of the past. The history of geology, who was behind/established the first teachings and the presumptuousness of it all tells the tale. Dating devices are theoretical too, the age of the earth is unknown. Cosmology is the same, conclusive fact without evidence has already been established, as science can only describe, never prove.
h2omanz 7 months ago
2.To claim to have factual knowledge of the universe is farcicality..when we know a tiny fraction about our own planet and its history. Humans/earth won't be around long enough to witness if macro rings as a truth. I have no problem with facts, evidence and proofs. Its 1/2 truths, propaganda, hoaxes, lies, bias presumptions taught/sold as fact that I have a problem with.
h2omanz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@h2omanz Are you a Christian?
Chibling 7 months ago
@13lueFlamingo There is evidence to believe that cultural change and development was most important in the innovation of civilization. Language is our greatest "trait" and the reason human beings can do what we can. That is not to say that evolution did not play a role, it did, but you have to realize we are cultural beings too. And it is not to say that we are not still evolving, consider lactase production (lactose tolerance) and milk farming from cows = culture + gene selection.
Chibling 7 months ago
@Chibling Language most definitively played a role in our cultural evolution . But one of the most important traits one that seperates us from other speices is our ability to reason . Well most of us anyway !
420gma 6 months ago
@420gma Do you think that reasoning is possible without language?
Chibling 6 months ago
@Chibling Maybe I didn't it state it correctly . My point was that we need both!
420gma 6 months ago
@420gma Agreed! :)
Chibling 6 months ago
she's hot!!!!!
93Roman 9 months ago
@93Roman
99% of female news readers are hot...thats why they are news readers ;)
MrDeano324 7 months ago
@MrDeano324 :) good one, and you're right - so u're in to mil his huh? me too, just sent ya an invite...cool vid about theanglo US stuff )
93Roman 7 months ago
Wow.............He knows everything cutting edge. Someday there will be a breakthrough
in energy. It is out there.
Check out the vid. of my current science project. See what u think?
scienceviewfinder 10 months ago
I wanna so shake his hand... screw superman! HE is my HERO!!!
machinmanidol2 10 months ago
You know I may despise you Fox News....but you got some fine looking ladies. Just saying....
oh and Science FTW!
zzzIdividedbyzerozzz 10 months ago
Coming from an atheist , I think that this world is a better one when we have both Religion and Science, but that will not always be the case.
yonasman01 10 months ago
screw the science! the news woman is unreal!!! she is beautifuk.
MrSuperwhiteguy 11 months ago
@ sinprelic I agree that you cannot prove non-existence. That was what I wanted to convey when I asked to prove a god doesn't exist. The sphere of religion lies in the realm of infallible. It does not need proof validating existence, it just needs the uncertainty of what could be.
I’m sorry, your thought processes are reasonable but misled.
inycxchris 11 months ago
@sinprelic I don't know which poll you got your 99% from but a poll on AAAS conducted two years ago found that 43% of physicists and astronomers believed in a higher power. Einstein did not think theology was a joke, he respected it. In his paper "Science and Religion" he wrote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." You can find many more essays and articles by Einstein of him sharing his own beliefs.
inycxchris 11 months ago
We can tailor make it to eat oil slicks. Exxon is very much interested in commercializing this... You cannot recall a life form. Is this synthetic bacteria already in the gulf of mexico?
Check this link:
/watch?v=Sv3FEv4OeRA&feature=channel_video_title
sythe007 11 months ago
why they always say that Michio Kaku is the author of Physics of Impossible... why they don't add that he is the co-founder of String theory?
DrKillaser 11 months ago
why the news have always sweet chicks ;d
zzerrattull 11 months ago
@HighCardWins: Kaku believes in a god. Most theoretical physicist are spiritual and believe in a god that created the universe. The god Einstein and Kaku believes in is different in nature than the Christian God in many aspects but nonetheless they believe in some god existing.
Heres my challenge to you: Prove a god doesn't exist. Mind you that it is more likely that Kaku and Einstein are right than you are.
inycxchris 1 year ago
@inycxchris maybe 99% of physicists dont believe in, a definition as wide as it is, god. einstein thought theology was a joke, and he only used the word because of the poverty of the english language to describe the forces at play in the universe.
you are never called upon to prove a negative. that is a law of logic. you cannot prove non-existence. by your logic, unicorns and leprechauns exist by default. i'm sorry, your thought processes are preposterous.
sinprelic 11 months ago
Kaku is an asshole, this is definitely a thumbs way up.
Craig Ventor for the win !
atheistkyo 1 year ago
I clicked because i saw kaku.
1KiwiProductions 1 year ago 99
@1KiwiProductions ANYTHING he says is interesting just because it is him saying it. He is possibly the most interesting person in the world.
Zurround100 11 months ago
@1KiwiProductions clicked for kaku, stayed for the hot redhead chick
pierrepineault 11 months ago 13
@1KiwiProductions Me too.
BudCharles999 10 months ago
i see zombies in our future....lol
BdangGONcorn 1 year ago
This wont be good if perfected, soon the liberals will create artificial slaves for the sex and porno slave trade i wouldn't trust them with this invention, they are mad men.
DMaustrap 1 year ago
@DMaustrap In greater good there will always somehow be greater evil that follows. Think of it like a positive parabola, y=x^2. It has both positive and negative values rising up at exponential rates. You can't do anything about it.
dadiddlydooda 1 year ago
If this cell could be put into the brain to increase the minds capability / understanding then we could figure out all the knowledge in the universe
Pystolwhipped 1 year ago
TERRIBLE REPORT!!!! who are the scientist that did this? where are the pic/vids? why ask kaku about what someones else did? when was this? what have they done with this sense? so many unanswer questions... FOX step your game up.
chacoal 1 year ago
@chacoal The video named *J Craig Venter: Designing LIfe* is a good one. It's from "60 Minutes" : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
3.ones that already hardened their hearts and aren't going to repent. The Bible states Christ will judge the heart, I made the statement 'not my call' of an evil person that never heard of Christ. For Christ is the judge not me. US kills innocent, every war, today in Iraq, Afghanistan over 100,000 civilians in Iraq alone. Atheists alone have killed over 150 million in the last 100yrs, Hitler used evo theory to speed up natural selection. Your not smarter than me...what are we in grade school?am
h2omanz 1 year ago
4.I talking to a tweenager, get a grip. 150yrs of unrefutable(not a word, at least not in English, its irrefutable) science, high school textbooks say so...funny. Odd how many facts need constant revision, publishers make a fortune.
h2omanz 1 year ago
5.Heres why God killed the babies in the OT. The tribes were evil in every way: Sexual impurity(orgies,homosexuality,incest,pedophilia), beastiality, murder, and worse they burnt their own children ALIVE as sacrifice to their gods.This is why he has them killed, men,woman,children and sometimes the animals(due to beastiality defiled them) so as not one start their people again(unless taken as slaves and made pure)
h2omanz 1 year ago
7.Also he used them as examples to make Himself known by surrounding nations to save them from ending up like the murdered tribes(in a way He killed some so as to save more, through fear of His wrath/punishment).Most important He needed to purify the land for the coming of Christ. He warned the tribes for 400+yrs via the prophets to change or they would be killed. God was Just and gave the wicked their well deserved punishment.
h2omanz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@h2omanz Infants and young children don't deserve to die! God murdered them.
"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)
"... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." (Judges 21:10-12)
This is why I hate your religion so much.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins
I don't think u hate my religion because of this but rather that it condemns your lifestyle/sin. Just another excuse you use. The people killed if u don't remember were tainted, murderers,committing incest, beastiality, homosexuality, burnt their own kids 'alive' to there gods, warned for 400 yrs to stop via prophets. These tribes including little ones 'needed' to be removed off the face of the earth. They were the worst of the worst, far more evil than any today. God was just.
h2omanz 1 year ago
I think you're a bit crazy+ religion is your crutch for not being willing to learn new things
Babies and little children aren't evil murderers. How many times do I have to point that out to you? You are OK with child murder, you just admitted it. You make no exceptions for innocent children being spared horrible suffering by being butchered. They deserved it, according to you.
You think incest is wrong? That's fucking hilarious. Cain had to have sex with his own mother and sisters.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@h2omanz You would be wrong about why I hate your dumb religion. Your God is a murderer. That's why.
Another example of you not knowing a thing.
Most people that are a so religious, usually have dark secrets. Are you hiding something? Maybe some sort of a Ted Haggard scenario?
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@h2omanz I don't care the about reasons for it, it wasn't right. God had the power to save them from harm, instead, he had them murdered. You're ok with child murder, I get it.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@h2omanz Doesn't matter. Still not just.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
6.'kinda like a weed or cancer,the whole thing must be removed' or it has a chance of growing back and intermingling with the chosen ones and other cultures. The culture would spread and infect all the lands,remember they are of EVIL and DESPISED by God, their ways may be a lifestyle today if it was not stopped.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz Babies aren't evil.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@h2omanz Babies are weeds, dope. They are innocent human beings. God could have spared them.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins
1.Actually I have learned a lot by study, you proven you havent as you cut/paste, can't use your own words...why..because you dont know anything on the subjects weve discussed .If you didnt have google u wouldnt have got this far.
I explained the killing of the tribes to you twice in detail, but ur hatred of religion has already predetermined your hate. Did I also mention that the tribes ate their own kids/ raped them. already passing this tradition on to the young ones.
h2omanz 1 year ago
2.The Bible states that the kids/babies were already evil and participated in the evil acts. Kinda pointless to explain it to someone that has his fingers in his ears. If God spared the babies the bloodline of evil would continue..get it, prob not. And millions more babies would eventually be sacrificed via their rituals, regrowth of the bloodline, so its not me that thinks it would be ok to kill babies, as to spare them
h2omanz 1 year ago
3.would allow the line to continue. There isnt a country today that wouldnt think twice about dropping a bomb on those cities if that much evil persisted. Weeds=babies.lol another one over your head.
Nope, you hate religion because it tells you that being a prostitute is wrong. If anyone has deep dark secrets Im sure you have plenty being in your type of business..I can only imagine how embarrassing you guilt must be.
h2omanz 1 year ago
4. Originally incest didnt exist, this is the way to get the population multiply, no other way. After it was established it became law to end it by Moses.
U still wont give me an answer on the gay issue, keep googling and get back to me
h2omanz 1 year ago
5. Cain didnt have sex with his mother....
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz dude shut the fuck up, religion is just some old bullshit
learn to think for yourself and make your own ideas instead of relying on some retarded book that makes no sense, i hope you dont have children because they would have a sad life
eleph4nt 1 year ago
@eleph4nt
Should I take advice from someone that still plays with building blocks, looks like you are a tween child.
If you have something to bring to the table to discuss I'm up for that. What is your experience and study on our existence? Im guess not much....
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz if you believe one word that's in the bible or any other religion book, i have nothing to discuss with you
i might "only" have a degree in fine arts, but i can give you this advice: trying to argue on the internet is sad as fuck my friend, stop wasting your time and other peoples time, nobodys gonna believe in your religion bullshit, thanks
eleph4nt 1 year ago
@eleph4nt
1. Thanx! for your foolish assumption. I commented on this post about how man will muck up such a discovery, as it will fall into the wrong hands. I never stated a word of religion. Others came and criticized me. I am not trying to convert anyone. Yeah it shows you havn only an art degree. I think I'll pass on your advice of how to spend time, since you spent 10hrs playing with children's building blocks. And then sadly spending more time making and posting a vid of it.
h2omanz 1 year ago
2.You don't know anything about religion/God, go back to the blocks, more your style, this post is not your place. As Im sure utube has some more adequate vids for u. If you don't want to discuss anything with me, keep your promise and be done.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz This is a science video, why are you here? Banana Boy Ray Cumfart or VenomFagX is more your style.
U didn't answer my question. Without invoking the supernatural to explain it, how did animals that are on islands, that can't swim and are thousands of miles away, get to the Ark?
I'm waiting for an answer. If you say anything about God, I am done with you.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@h2omanz I understood your stupid weeds analogy, idiot. My response obviously went over your head.
In context of your dumb analogy abouts weeds needing to be ripped out, babies and little children don't equate to "weeds" and don't deserve death under any scenario.
I'm not a prostitute moron. It's called humor. Are you to stupid to realize that my entire profile page is just jokes? You have brought that up a couple of times, so, I guess you are to stupid to realize when someone is joking.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins
1.So you never said anything before( about being a prostitute), when I mentioned it like 5-6 times, why only now? Yeah I guess your right it is all a joke. destroyn religion...your funny. You cant even type your own replies to your own religion.
It is great to site published material, give links. But if you rely on their words(exact words) for answers in our discussion. It fails. Again, and again if I wanted to read a book I wouldn't be talking to you.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz How many times must I tell you, atheism is not a religion. The definition is: the belief no god/gods exist. Your argument is the same as saying NOT playing basketball is a sport. Dumb
I have given you links, you just say they're not worth reading
I'm not a scientist. From my own study though, I'm aware of the evidence supporting evolution, age of Earth, etc. When I direct u to that information, u put the creationist's blindfold on and dimiss it.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins
I never said atheism is a religion. Evolutionist are religious.
Nope, I actually read all you posted.
LoL..check your PM..stop with your nonsense. I am here because I follow science, this is real science. You see it is provable, unlike your so called science. Ray cumfart...your the best.
h2omanz 1 year ago
2. Or your done with me? Is that a promise, then end it. You are the one that can make that happen. Not sure if you know the other comment wasnt for you.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz Evolution isn't a religion, stupid. Only delusional fundies like you say this.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins
Religion
h2omanz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@h2omanz Prove a god exist. Can't do it? Wait for Jesus all you want too.
HighCardWins 1 year ago 15
@HighCardWins Because you are a conscience being with thoughts and morals (hopefully), you are not a computer who cannot do something without being programmed to do so first, you do not run off of nothing but 1's and 0's. Because humans are the only beings on this planet smart enough to think of ways God doesn't exist. Because a chimp cannot even say theoretical physics. Prove he doesn't exist, because this and your comment didn't
TheMetalGuy852 7 months ago
@TheMetalGuy852 I'm a pantheist/atheist. I only do not believe in a personal god or a god of prayer. That's my beliefs.
Asking me to prove something doesn't exist is a loaded question. You can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist either, though I think many people know the story's origins and know Santa is make-believe.
Do you know there is a gene for language? Look it up. Our ability to speak is a product of evolution not a gift from some god.
HighCardWins 7 months ago
@HighCardWins Prove a God doesn't exist. You can't do it either. The evidence up to and including this video would suggest that the creation of life or modification of life requires intelligent design, not chaos. Of course understanding such concepts requires intelligence as well....
JaleelJohanson62 7 months ago
@h2omanz Like I said, when having a discussion of science, it's ok to site published material to answers your ignorant questions. But like you said, it's not worth reading. Proof you don't want answers and you are happy to stay delusional.
I don't need science to prove that your beliefs are ridiculous. Just simple logic.
Without invoking anything supernatural to explain it, how did animals that are on islands, can't swim and are thousands of miles away, arrive at the Ark?
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@h2omanz You believe little children ,who are abused ,should be killed so they won't grow to be murderers.
If God took them out of that enviornment, they wouldn't grow up to be bad people. This shows God didn't have mercy for little children, yet, he claims to be omnibenevolent. More evidence that your religion is primitive illogical nonsense.
If God told you told you to kill infants, would you do it?
HighCardWins 1 year ago
How dumb was that reporter?
staglib 1 year ago
@staglib She works for FOX, what do you expect?
HighCardWins 1 year ago
"we can create bacteria to eat carbon dioxide"
Good fucking god don't do this, please. Unless you know how to control it.
pbmdh 1 year ago
@pbmdh do you have any clue as to what your saying? All plants, algae and many bacteria "eat" CO2, and have already reduced the amount in the atmosphere to a mere fraction of what it was at earths origin. These additional bacteria would have "suicide genes" built in, meaning they can't survive without the correct cocktail of chemicals supplied by man. If their actions need to be curtailed, then less of the cocktail is supplied. And should we be pumping out CO2 unless we know how to control it?
jingleby1 1 year ago
NOTICE....THE MENTION OF 'EXXON/MOBILE'....THAT MEANS ITS OWNED BY THE 'ROCKEFELLERS' AND ANY GOOD THAT WOULD COME FROM THIS WILL BE BURIED....AND ALL ITS BAD USES WILL BE MANIFESTED TO HUMANITY TO FURTHER THE ROCKEFELLERS OBSESSION WITH DEPOPULATION AND A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT....IF THE STUPID BRAINWASHED SPOILED BRAT PUBLIC IN AMERICA KNEW WHAT THE UBER RICH OF THE WORLD WAS WORKING TOWARD...THEY'D SHIT!!
treon123456 1 year ago
she is a bimbo
Virus278 1 year ago
i would fuck the shit out of her with my kaku.
imbarisaxy 1 year ago
The beginning of the end. Man messing with something he knows little about. The future implications of such manipulation of natural cells will more than likely be our downfall. Great things can be achieved(biofuels, reverse disease etc..) but it will eventually fall into the hands of Dr. Evil.....Fricken ill tempered bass
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz Question is, now that it exists, how can you maximise its potential whilst minimising the risks. Speaking of which, that reminds me of most of human technologies.
jingleby1 1 year ago
@jingleby1
Man will self exterminate, tinkering with nature on such a huge scale will be futile... eventually
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz All species go extinct one way or another, although you are right in mans ability to tinker with "gaia" far more than any other species before hand. How do you define the success of a species, even if humans lived only until tomorrow, our accomplishments have far exceeded those of any other organism. We (crudely) predict the future, invented mathmatics, split the atom, and can control the course of evolution. "Not bad for a bipedal ape".
jingleby1 1 year ago
@jingleby1
well not really wanting to debate our start, but how would bipedalism be a benefit over quadrupedalism, as it is slower and is more of a devolve than an evolve. I dont believe in common ancestry.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz There are numerous advantages, the most obvious being that a bipedal animal can use two arms to manipulate tools. An animal that must use its front limbs for support can't cut down a tree using an axe, or throw a spear whilst running. But that wasn't my point, my point was that humans have acheived so much in the 200,000 years since our appearance onto this earth. Bipedal ape was merely a way of describing us.
jingleby1 1 year ago
@jingleby1
1.Quadropeds are faster and more stable, and are at a huge advantage to the slower locomotion of humans,which in fact makes man the most vulnerable target on earth against enemies. Hardly an 'upgrade'. There is no proof of an intermediate bi-quad, it is impossible for the transition. There's nothing scientific with this claim.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@jingleby1
2.My whole point and no offense is that there is a reason a common ancestor can't/won't be found..it doesn't exist. 5,000-7,000 various extinct ape skulls provide plenty of filler to keep the dream of ToE alive. Real science provides proof and doesn't assume. ToE fails the scientific definition.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz 1.Humans don't need to run fast. Can you think of any other living thing capable of launching anything more complex than poisonous spit. We can launch rocks, spears, arrows, bullets and nuclear missiles. We don't need to run from a lion when we can shoot it, we don't need to outrun gazelle, we just shoot that too. Obviously running fast is an advantage, but we don't need to, using our hands is a bigger one. Besides we can travel faster than sound, I'd say that trumps the pesky cheetah.
jingleby1 1 year ago
@jingleby1
1. Yeah we can do all that because we are not related. My point is why man would find the need for bipedalism in the first place:Bipedilsm(according to ToE) occurred millions of years prior the first tool or use of a one. To develop a useless, awkward
crude bipedalism over a more productive quad stride? It would and be counterproductive, not a natural advantage. Did nature know that eventually this clumsy transition for a million yrs would be of beneficial? Hardly
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz 1. As you clearly can't link the ideas ancient man used to develop new breeds of animal and plant (arificial slection) , with a century old theory (natural selection) that withstood the test of time, this is wasted. Religious beliefs survive because they tell us what we want to hear, that we are special. I would like nothing better than to believe this is not all I am. Sadly believing something does not make it true. We atheists accept this, whilst you bigots argue about "the science".
jingleby1 1 year ago
@jingleby1
1.Sadly when one draws their conclusions based on bias one-sided study, this forms an illogical conclusion. I have studied religion, science for 20+yrs. I am no more a bigot than you as you rely on faith that man has common with priors. One who is religious and to label them uneducated or anti science is daft, I follow peer and published works. I know what is science and what is psuedoscience. The claims of ToE is what actually opened interest in my years of personal study.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@jingleby1
2. I have weighed the evidences bias free and drawn my conclusion based on what both sides present/claim. You have accepted the claims of what you are told as fact w/o study of anything outside this bias field.
I meant rock, primordial soup. The claim that real science proves impossible. All life shares dna true and to use this as proof of common descent can easily and logically be claimed as a blueprint of created beings.If dna is evidence of our closeness to apes then why this..
h2omanz 1 year ago
@jingleby1
3.There are two species of flies (Drosophila) that look alike but have only 25 percent of their DNA sequences in common. Yet the DNA of humans and chimpanzees share 93ish percent. This means the DNA of two virtually identical flies is 30 times more different than that between humans and chimpanzees.
Dna means nothing, fruit flies have almost the same in common with us as do apes(90's), pumkins 75%, bananas 50%, this is not proof of either claim.
h2omanz 1 year ago
@h2omanz 1 I won't bother to reply to many more of these, they are falling on deaf ears. Is Creationism taught as a science at any world class research university? Your statement about Drosophila shows your ignorance. Drosopila is now being broken down after the revelations that the genus contains flies that are not related closely enough to warrant their grouping. I noticed you havn't touched on the other biochemical similarities. I myself am studying Biochemistry, don't try to warp the facts.
jingleby1 1 year ago
@j1
Warp facts?lol, A 16 yr old studying biochem, impressive... The fact that creationism isnt taught is because of the 20's fraudulent/laughable evidence presented to sway the world into the illusion of common descent, and who funds this universities(govern..go figure!) Im glad you have teachers that tell you what is fact as you seem not capable on your own. Nor the years to do so.The flies, you missed the point, of the visual identity vs the dna. See if you can keep your promise and not reply.
h2omanz 1 year ago