Very interesting isnt it, how we all in turn adapt to the harshness of our own reality... I found this video very interesting and well made all the same, could you get the other three?
I hate people who make the claim that if you don't believe we should enslave people, live on a flat earth, and consider women inferior, you are NOT a true christian.
So you are saying that the bible does not clearly state that the earth is "up to 10,000 years old" but you are interpreting it this way based on other verses describing a geneology?
In addition you state that if you "dont take the bible literally, then u cant be a true christian."
Does this mean that the only true Christians all believe in a flat earth?
i believe there is a god. and i believe the bible is the word of god. and the bible says the earth is up to 10 thousand yrs old. so that is my assumption to find logic and reason to all these kinds of things. ur assumptions are based on proving evolution. so our persepectives are just different.
Which specific book, chapter and verse states the earth is "up to 10,000 years old"? ...or are you simply accepting the narrow interpretation of literalists?
@djarm67 I think we should give 5506 a break. What he said is no difference in structure or essence as: "I believe in Xeno, and I believe L. Ron Herbert spoke the words or Xeno. Dianetic said we are all vessels of the souls of aliens. So that is my assumption to find logic and reason to all these kinds of things."
You believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old because it is in a book that was written thousands of years ago. You believe them BECAUSE they are in this book that you were taught that this one book was the truth.
Scientists look at the world and try to figure out how it works. They gather evidence, and if it contradicts what they believe, they change their beliefs to match the observed evidence. Astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology and physics ALL tell us billions of years.
@5506 So just to state a fact you have gotten wrong: Science does not hold an assumption that is from some book or claims not based on evidence.
Darwin observed living and extinct species, found a pattern, tested on everything he saw and it all fit that pattern, and published it as the theory of evolution (Making a hypothesis). Everything discovered in the fossils, and seen in the laboratories or anywhere in the world fits the theory of evolution (repeated testing).
@5506 Furthermore, we don't find evidence to support evolution, we find evidence, period. If evidence disproves evolution, we say that evolution is wrong (after thoroughly checking the validity of that evidence). A statement of there being not enough evidence (there's no transitional form...blah blah....) does not disprove a theory. A simple example - if I make a theory saying that all apple are green, red, or yellow, saying that there are apples I haven't looked at does not make it wrong.
@5506 Can you understand exactly what a grand energy and spirit that lives forever and is all powerful? If you could, you'd be a god yourself. The bible is man writing gods word in ways they could understand with inferior minds to God.
The message of love is true, but please leave your comments of literalness outside of those trying to understand how god sculpted us in their time. Its the gift we were given -- to feel wonder and try to grow into something grander.
Because the conditions of the environment have not been constant over the course of time, we cannot accurately determine the half-life of compounds that take a long time to deteriorate. We can get an educated guess under ideal conditions in a lab setting, but we cannot measure them out in real-world conditions. Thus, the assumption that carbon-14 (or any other isotope) deteriorates at a constant rate is false.
i believe the problem with using radiometric dating is because the assumption that the half-life of these isotopes is 100% constant. It is not. There is a significant difference whether they were exposed to air, buried, what they were buried in, proximity to other radioactive isotopes, exposure to UV radiation, etc., etc., etc. Radioactive isotopes follow the same rules as other compounds: the conditions of the environment determines how fast a compound deteriorates.
When you hear that there is a flaw in the ideas at 4:00, this is mostly true. It's called "horizontal transfer" and simply means that single cell organisms can share genes *without* sexual reproduction. The real problem with this is that it's a bit more subject to error and mutation.
Very interesting, but it makes is sound like they chose to start laying eggs or grow a penis... Sharks "invented" sex about as much as birds "invented" feathers.
Wow thats a perfect example of a quote mine. The man said "inveted sex...so to speak" leave that second part off and you have a point. However I think you may just have a complete misunderstanding of the word metaphor so I won't bother explaining it to you.
Since I know what a metaphor is, I may have to explain to you that it is not a metaphor. This is, in fact, an analogy, and a rather bad one at that. The use of language here indicates a belief that a choice was made to change, misrepresenting what evolution is. Sharks did not choose to "invent sex" nether did evolution. There was no "invention," hence poor analogy.
As for being a quote mine, how did I misrepresent what was said in such a way for it to mean the opposite?
"As for being a quote mine, how did I misrepresent what was said." Simple he said "invented sex so to speak" Meeaning they were the first to do it. You said they "invented" sex making it seem as if the guy was saying it was a concious decision.
He also said invented two other times without saying "so to speak," even if he had have added "so to speak" every time, I said "makes it sound like." In other words I got the impression that it could be misrepresented. I never said that he thinks sharks actually came up with an idea and implemented it, changing themselves physically, but that others could too easily misconstrue it. Thats just my opinion.
ok I understand your opinion on a show about the biolagical evolution of coitus, misunderstood invented to mean that an animimal consiously changed the way it reproduced. OK but in the real world we know that it is just a function of evolution. If you are confused and belive that he actually ment that sharks decided to use sexual instead of asexual reproduction that is fine I accept that you are confused.
Now your just being insulting. Because I didn't look past a poor use of a word means that I am confused? Invented is just not the right word. Not in reality, not as an analogy. It wouldn't be a problem if more people understood evolution, but there are people that WILL misunderstand this.
Its from a show called "Evolve" which runs on the History channel. Neither of these is going to be viewed by someone who misunderstands evolution. The producers of the series know their audience and do not feel the need to talk down to them. As far as who is being insulting; you are the one suggesting people might actually think that sharks sat down and started brainstorming ideas about a new way to procreate over morning coffee. I just give people more credit than that.
I must apologize, I have been watching things like this on Youtube for a while and kept seeing comments from people who completely misunderstand evolution. I would never have thought that someone who does not (want) to understand this would see "evolve" in the title and think "well, better not randomly say evolution is wrong on this channel because it is not aimed at me"
I saw a misuse of a word and commented. I must think all people are morons! It all so clear now!
Hey as long as we agree and you apologize. Because you are a man very concerned about specific wording and the correct use of the language I appreciate you using it in your response. I accept your apology.
It goes back way before sharks. Evidence has shown that similar anatomic structures in multiple species of placoderm fossils dating to 380mya were used the same way sharks use them.
The only misgiving I have about this series is that it makes it seem like all species reproduce sexually, when such is definitely not the case. Most of the organisms looked at in this series reside in Animalia, which is only one major branch of organisms.
lmfao, male sharks rape the females to reproduce
kingkong8974 1 year ago
Very interesting isnt it, how we all in turn adapt to the harshness of our own reality... I found this video very interesting and well made all the same, could you get the other three?
jessxxy 1 year ago
Thank you for this great video
maroom1 2 years ago
Damn those votebots!
renaudldw 2 years ago
lol. No prob. :)
Ripley747 2 years ago
I hate people who make the claim that if you don't believe we should enslave people, live on a flat earth, and consider women inferior, you are NOT a true christian.
anon4654 2 years ago 7
Why, its a perfectly valid point.
ReverendAtomSmasher 2 years ago
Because there is no such thing as a TRUE christian. The definition is all fucked up.
anon4654 2 years ago
The penis serves 1 purpose? lol. Mine serves at least 2 purposes (peeing and sex). I just felt compelled to point that out.
Ripley747 2 years ago
You could have your penis cut off but still pee through whatever stub was left.
nrtitus14 2 years ago
lol...um...no.
Ripley747 2 years ago
Well it seems that sharks invented rape too.
sthebg20 2 years ago 2
haha, don't worry baby i'm just tweakin' ya dorsal fin.
debakle001 2 years ago 4
So you are saying that the bible does not clearly state that the earth is "up to 10,000 years old" but you are interpreting it this way based on other verses describing a geneology?
In addition you state that if you "dont take the bible literally, then u cant be a true christian."
Does this mean that the only true Christians all believe in a flat earth?
djarm67 3 years ago 5
I think his saying the only true christian are ones that belive the bible word for word.
DarkTheAtheist 3 years ago
yes. just like the trinity. the word trinity is never said but the bible speaks of it.
:)
5506 2 years ago
Your assumption is that decay rates change based on environmental factors. This is false.
djarm67 3 years ago
i believe there is a god. and i believe the bible is the word of god. and the bible says the earth is up to 10 thousand yrs old. so that is my assumption to find logic and reason to all these kinds of things. ur assumptions are based on proving evolution. so our persepectives are just different.
jesus loves you tho my brother.
5506 3 years ago
Which specific book, chapter and verse states the earth is "up to 10,000 years old"? ...or are you simply accepting the narrow interpretation of literalists?
djarm67 3 years ago
the book of genisis gives the geneology that goes back to up to that much. uve heard it before. u know where its at.
and if u (not necessarilly you personally) dont take the bible literally, then u cant be a true christian.
5506 3 years ago
@djarm67 I think we should give 5506 a break. What he said is no difference in structure or essence as: "I believe in Xeno, and I believe L. Ron Herbert spoke the words or Xeno. Dianetic said we are all vessels of the souls of aliens. So that is my assumption to find logic and reason to all these kinds of things."
WSCP 1 year ago
@WSCP Actually I don't wanna offend anyone here, so I'm going to spam my own comment.
WSCP 1 year ago
@djarm67 i does not say that . it says its 4k years old and the earth was made in 6 days :/
jeffk6 1 year ago
@jeffk6 Which specific book, chapter and verse states the earth is 4,000 years old?
djarm67 1 year ago
You believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old because it is in a book that was written thousands of years ago. You believe them BECAUSE they are in this book that you were taught that this one book was the truth.
Scientists look at the world and try to figure out how it works. They gather evidence, and if it contradicts what they believe, they change their beliefs to match the observed evidence. Astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology and physics ALL tell us billions of years.
jgoemat 2 years ago 4
@5506 So just to state a fact you have gotten wrong: Science does not hold an assumption that is from some book or claims not based on evidence.
Darwin observed living and extinct species, found a pattern, tested on everything he saw and it all fit that pattern, and published it as the theory of evolution (Making a hypothesis). Everything discovered in the fossils, and seen in the laboratories or anywhere in the world fits the theory of evolution (repeated testing).
WSCP 1 year ago
@5506 Furthermore, we don't find evidence to support evolution, we find evidence, period. If evidence disproves evolution, we say that evolution is wrong (after thoroughly checking the validity of that evidence). A statement of there being not enough evidence (there's no transitional form...blah blah....) does not disprove a theory. A simple example - if I make a theory saying that all apple are green, red, or yellow, saying that there are apples I haven't looked at does not make it wrong.
WSCP 1 year ago
@5506 Can you understand exactly what a grand energy and spirit that lives forever and is all powerful? If you could, you'd be a god yourself. The bible is man writing gods word in ways they could understand with inferior minds to God.
The message of love is true, but please leave your comments of literalness outside of those trying to understand how god sculpted us in their time. Its the gift we were given -- to feel wonder and try to grow into something grander.
mindsend 1 year ago
@mindsend well said
jeffk6 1 year ago
Because the conditions of the environment have not been constant over the course of time, we cannot accurately determine the half-life of compounds that take a long time to deteriorate. We can get an educated guess under ideal conditions in a lab setting, but we cannot measure them out in real-world conditions. Thus, the assumption that carbon-14 (or any other isotope) deteriorates at a constant rate is false.
5506 3 years ago
but carbon 14 is based on assumptions.why does it have to be in millions of years? why not thousands of years?
5506 3 years ago
Show me "one" scientific paper that uses carbon 14 to date millions of years. Just one!
This is a misrepresentation of radiometric dating constructed by creationists.
djarm67 3 years ago
what i meant is why is the result of radiometric dating in the millions of years? under what basis?
5506 3 years ago
Which radiometric isotope?
djarm67 3 years ago
i believe the problem with using radiometric dating is because the assumption that the half-life of these isotopes is 100% constant. It is not. There is a significant difference whether they were exposed to air, buried, what they were buried in, proximity to other radioactive isotopes, exposure to UV radiation, etc., etc., etc. Radioactive isotopes follow the same rules as other compounds: the conditions of the environment determines how fast a compound deteriorates.
5506 3 years ago
Who told you this rubbish?
Radioactive decay itself is completely unaffected by any of the methods you mention.
Proximity to other radioactive isotopes does not impact the decay. It can simply result in more of a compound.
djarm67 3 years ago
imo, it takes a lot more faith to believe in all this than to believe there is a creator :)
5506 3 years ago
Why?
You can see all this happen and study it, you can't see your 'creator'.
ytmoog 3 years ago
so we, mankind, saw all this happen millions of years ago? or is it all assumptions?
5506 3 years ago
"mankind, saw all this happen millions of years ago?"
Yes.
From the fossil record and DNA evidence.
We also see it today.
ytmoog 3 years ago 3
Aaaah sex, is there anything you can't do?
Quionic7 3 years ago
American nature documentry commentators are alway waaaaay to excited.
Give me good ol' David Attenborough any day.
OktoberSunset 3 years ago 2
When you hear that there is a flaw in the ideas at 4:00, this is mostly true. It's called "horizontal transfer" and simply means that single cell organisms can share genes *without* sexual reproduction. The real problem with this is that it's a bit more subject to error and mutation.
Sex is *still* better :)
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
Very interesting, but it makes is sound like they chose to start laying eggs or grow a penis... Sharks "invented" sex about as much as birds "invented" feathers.
iamimiPod 3 years ago
metaphor! its is
wilddey 3 years ago
Wow thats a perfect example of a quote mine. The man said "inveted sex...so to speak" leave that second part off and you have a point. However I think you may just have a complete misunderstanding of the word metaphor so I won't bother explaining it to you.
wormbaby79 3 years ago
Since I know what a metaphor is, I may have to explain to you that it is not a metaphor. This is, in fact, an analogy, and a rather bad one at that. The use of language here indicates a belief that a choice was made to change, misrepresenting what evolution is. Sharks did not choose to "invent sex" nether did evolution. There was no "invention," hence poor analogy.
As for being a quote mine, how did I misrepresent what was said in such a way for it to mean the opposite?
iamimiPod 3 years ago
"As for being a quote mine, how did I misrepresent what was said." Simple he said "invented sex so to speak" Meeaning they were the first to do it. You said they "invented" sex making it seem as if the guy was saying it was a concious decision.
wormbaby79 3 years ago
He also said invented two other times without saying "so to speak," even if he had have added "so to speak" every time, I said "makes it sound like." In other words I got the impression that it could be misrepresented. I never said that he thinks sharks actually came up with an idea and implemented it, changing themselves physically, but that others could too easily misconstrue it. Thats just my opinion.
iamimiPod 3 years ago
ok I understand your opinion on a show about the biolagical evolution of coitus, misunderstood invented to mean that an animimal consiously changed the way it reproduced. OK but in the real world we know that it is just a function of evolution. If you are confused and belive that he actually ment that sharks decided to use sexual instead of asexual reproduction that is fine I accept that you are confused.
wormbaby79 3 years ago
Now your just being insulting. Because I didn't look past a poor use of a word means that I am confused? Invented is just not the right word. Not in reality, not as an analogy. It wouldn't be a problem if more people understood evolution, but there are people that WILL misunderstand this.
iamimiPod 3 years ago
Its from a show called "Evolve" which runs on the History channel. Neither of these is going to be viewed by someone who misunderstands evolution. The producers of the series know their audience and do not feel the need to talk down to them. As far as who is being insulting; you are the one suggesting people might actually think that sharks sat down and started brainstorming ideas about a new way to procreate over morning coffee. I just give people more credit than that.
wormbaby79 3 years ago
I must apologize, I have been watching things like this on Youtube for a while and kept seeing comments from people who completely misunderstand evolution. I would never have thought that someone who does not (want) to understand this would see "evolve" in the title and think "well, better not randomly say evolution is wrong on this channel because it is not aimed at me"
I saw a misuse of a word and commented. I must think all people are morons! It all so clear now!
iamimiPod 3 years ago
Hey as long as we agree and you apologize. Because you are a man very concerned about specific wording and the correct use of the language I appreciate you using it in your response. I accept your apology.
wormbaby79 3 years ago
It goes back way before sharks. Evidence has shown that similar anatomic structures in multiple species of placoderm fossils dating to 380mya were used the same way sharks use them.
RoGhrianadh 3 years ago
The penis proved so valuable...
mytubemedia567 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only misgiving I have about this series is that it makes it seem like all species reproduce sexually, when such is definitely not the case. Most of the organisms looked at in this series reside in Animalia, which is only one major branch of organisms.
Spootmeister 3 years ago
Comment removed
Spootmeister 3 years ago
Bouw-chicka bouw mouw.
Okay, that was juvenile. :P Sorry. Thanks for uploading this. It was an interesting watch.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
GAY BUTT SEX! Mmmmmmmm
DarylWashingtonV4 3 years ago
so when a creationist asks for evidence of evoloution i can legitimately say i have 'a very good example' in my pants. happy days
lampyman101 3 years ago 18
I'm going to need to examine this evidence to, uh, prove its accuracy.
sciencealwayswins 3 years ago
its got to go through peer review before release to the public. sorry
lampyman101 3 years ago
NIce one. i wonder when it is going to be flagged...
leungchaan 3 years ago
When do you think VFX will see it?
pro272727 3 years ago 3
He's 23 and probably still a virgin. And he'll claim it's for religious reasons, but the real reason is me and every other gay guy won't touch him.
CB563 3 years ago
wow, it's still up! VFX must be very busy at the moment..
leungchaan 3 years ago