Dinosaurs will come out from underground; antichrist is a white gay man with red eyes; mark of the antichrist is a green electronic tattoo with sixes that is given when one stretches their hand to receive world passport; ufos=demons=aliens=ascended masters=ghosts=channeled entities=dead relatives during seances; atlantis is underneath mariana trench; china will attack russia; don't worship the antichrist; don't take his mark; don't go into a ufo ship under any circumstances
There is no real contradiction between a belief in God and evolution. The contradiction only exists between religious fundamentalism and evolution......
"That could explain why some of the most ancient fossils now considered human ancestors have such striking mixtures of chimp and human traits - some could actually have been hybrids." Time 09OCT06 page 50.
On 60 Minutes [today (04/11)] Bob Simon in fact called this thing a "hybrid".
Oh this is awesome! I've only been able to read about it recently, but not any video media yet. Thank you for sharing I'll have to keep an eye out for this bbc coverage later.
Great vid, and a great new channel found! Thanks Loz
NICE!!! And just yesterday I was havin' an argument with some shit-eattin' bastard that says there is literally no evidence of evolution!.. Even though we discover new evolutions in plants and animals constantly and have evidence human evolution in anthropological findings and even in our own bodies.... Uhg, Ridiculous creationists
Sky Daddy's joke that creationists believe. God planted fossils to fool scientists. Evolution is still the best theory without a doubt. Another great video Loz..
@Dwicker64 evolution is a very good theory, type in lloyd pye in the search enginge he also has a VERY good theory, the best i have seen is his presentation on divine intervention, the whole thing can be found on YT in 8 parts
@TheSpearthrower The same can be said for most scientists though, there is no actual proof as there is nobody that was around to witness, i guess i like him because his theory sits well with me
@jalidav1 No jalidav, the same cannot be said for 'most' scientists as they are obliged to publish in peer reviewed journals with arbitrators who gleefully pull down any flaws in the methodology. Furthermore, science MUST be testable Pye's is not even remotely testable, it's pure fantasy shoved onto a tacky rant against science. Sure, you might like the notion - I read fantasy too! But it's not a scientific theory...
@jalidav1 Furthermore, you appear to be arguing against all deductive logic. If a policeman finds a corpse with a man standing over the body covered in blood, holding the same type of weapon used in the murder, and with marks of struggle on his own body.... then the policeman must let the guy go as he wasn't there to witness it. It makes no sense. We use factual evidence to construct hypotheses that we then test against reality - Pye doesn't do science, he makes up something that sounds nice.
@TheSpearthrower Theory is simply that though, theory. He deducts his theory from his personal findings, but again no actual proof. Just like anybody else he has deducted an hypothesis from his research, to say that his is less likely than anybody elses without 100% actual proof either way is very closed minded. The idea of common sense can mean many different things to people, his level of common sense brought him to that conclusion, which i agree with
@jalidav1 Categorically mistaken jalidav. A theory in lay terminology is an idea, a theory in the scientific sense is an explanatory model that has been repeatedly tested against reality and never falsified. Please don't bother with the 'closed-minded' crap, it's woo speak for 'won't accept any old doggerel placed in front of you'. Common sense is a terrible method of evaluating reality, as 400 years of scientific endeavour has shown. Experimentation against the facts is the only arbiter.
@jalidav1 'no actual proof' - in science, this is unacceptable. You use data to construct hypotheses, not construct a hypothesis then see what facts can fit. I understand where you are coming from, but you do need to comprehend that the scientific method is an established method for falsification. Science doesn't look to 'prove' things, it looks to remove erroneous notions. Type in hypothetico-deductive in wiki or google to get where I am coming from.
@jalidav1 Pye's conjecture is no more valid than me making something up right now on the spot and failing to test for it. Secondly, in case it escaped your notice, he explicitly abandons the scientific method and spends hundreds of words attempting to justify it. So if his 'theory' is scientific, why does he need to undermine the long established, and clearly effective, scientific method? Liking something is not an excuse to credit it uncritically.
@TheSpearthrower but wasnt it stephen hawkins himself who said that when a scientific experiment is conducted, if the readings from the experiment differ from what was expected, ie the formula that was used brought about a different reaction than it should have, it is more often that the credulity of the person taking the readings is questioned rather than the formula itself, what i mean is in many cases they only take into account the 'fact' that backs up the original theory
@jalidav1 The issue there is with theoretical physics. It is based solely on mathematics, as such, an equation must be correct as it is its own proof. This is a different territory than the majority of science which is based solely upon empirical data, formed into a hypothetical model and used to make predictions that must be falsifiable. This is one reason why 'string theory' is not actually a scientific theory. It should be 'string conjecture', Hawkins has made similar observations.
@TheSpearthrower I must say it is nice to actually talk to someone on youtube without having them turn it into a slanging match for a change, thank you
in essence, through this research we will only ever travel in one direction no matter how right or wrong it is, I am not saying that Pye is correct in his findings but what I do enjoy about it is the idea of a different direction and the proof he uses to back it up, for instance the idea that neanderthal man has many different species and didn't evolve the way we are led to believe. Also the different number of chromosomes, right or wrong it is very interesting
@jalidav1 I'm glad you touched on this, as this is my own area of focus. I studied Anthropology and Human Evolution, with particular focus on Homo neanderthalensis. Pye's remarks are clearly from someone who has little to no knowledge of neanderthals, and he has quite literally made up a lot of false information to support his conjecture. I understand this is a specialist subject, but my warning is to always do independent research when someone rants about the 'experts'.
@jalidav1 I agree with you - the missing "link Is a lot of bull" . If we evolved from the primate/s there wouls have to be more than One missing link - one for each homo sapien race - forget about the missing link, it will never be found - it doesn't exsist. Science once taugh our solar system revolved around our earth - also that the earth was flat. - Things change as new/old things are discovered, I go with "Pye"
This has been flagged as spam show
Dinosaurs will come out from underground; antichrist is a white gay man with red eyes; mark of the antichrist is a green electronic tattoo with sixes that is given when one stretches their hand to receive world passport; ufos=demons=aliens=ascended masters=ghosts=channeled entities=dead relatives during seances; atlantis is underneath mariana trench; china will attack russia; don't worship the antichrist; don't take his mark; don't go into a ufo ship under any circumstances
goodinfotoknow 2 months ago
Three cheers for the new Australopithecine on the block. Move over Homo habilis???
AtheistinFundyLand 5 months ago
lo,l I new we didnt evolve from a bat-boy or an aligator-man like the Enquirer said.
Dexxxter7780 7 months ago
they will find later it is another monkey.
glendaweil 9 months ago
prepare for the creationist wave of denial
blazereef 1 year ago
There is no real contradiction between a belief in God and evolution. The contradiction only exists between religious fundamentalism and evolution......
medesdaddy 1 year ago
"That could explain why some of the most ancient fossils now considered human ancestors have such striking mixtures of chimp and human traits - some could actually have been hybrids." Time 09OCT06 page 50.
On 60 Minutes [today (04/11)] Bob Simon in fact called this thing a "hybrid".
Mdebacle 1 year ago
Oh this is awesome! I've only been able to read about it recently, but not any video media yet. Thank you for sharing I'll have to keep an eye out for this bbc coverage later.
Great vid, and a great new channel found! Thanks Loz
Koss42 1 year ago
@Koss42 You are very welcome! Also, they have discovered others, but these are being kept secret for the time being, that sounds very interesting.
LozTheAtheist 1 year ago
Move over Ardi, we just found another one (which according to creationists, doesn't exist)
From outward appearance, it looks like a bridging species between the australopithecines and early homo.
Can't wait for the future papers!
lowcomedy 1 year ago
NICE!!! And just yesterday I was havin' an argument with some shit-eattin' bastard that says there is literally no evidence of evolution!.. Even though we discover new evolutions in plants and animals constantly and have evidence human evolution in anthropological findings and even in our own bodies.... Uhg, Ridiculous creationists
ubersteigen 1 year ago
Sky Daddy's joke that creationists believe. God planted fossils to fool scientists. Evolution is still the best theory without a doubt. Another great video Loz..
Dwicker64 1 year ago 4
@Dwicker64 evolution is a very good theory, type in lloyd pye in the search enginge he also has a VERY good theory, the best i have seen is his presentation on divine intervention, the whole thing can be found on YT in 8 parts
jalidav1 1 year ago
@jalidav1 It's a 'theory' in the non-scientific sense. Just another snake oil salesman pushing his wares.
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
@TheSpearthrower The same can be said for most scientists though, there is no actual proof as there is nobody that was around to witness, i guess i like him because his theory sits well with me
jalidav1 1 year ago
@jalidav1 No jalidav, the same cannot be said for 'most' scientists as they are obliged to publish in peer reviewed journals with arbitrators who gleefully pull down any flaws in the methodology. Furthermore, science MUST be testable Pye's is not even remotely testable, it's pure fantasy shoved onto a tacky rant against science. Sure, you might like the notion - I read fantasy too! But it's not a scientific theory...
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
@jalidav1 Furthermore, you appear to be arguing against all deductive logic. If a policeman finds a corpse with a man standing over the body covered in blood, holding the same type of weapon used in the murder, and with marks of struggle on his own body.... then the policeman must let the guy go as he wasn't there to witness it. It makes no sense. We use factual evidence to construct hypotheses that we then test against reality - Pye doesn't do science, he makes up something that sounds nice.
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
@TheSpearthrower Theory is simply that though, theory. He deducts his theory from his personal findings, but again no actual proof. Just like anybody else he has deducted an hypothesis from his research, to say that his is less likely than anybody elses without 100% actual proof either way is very closed minded. The idea of common sense can mean many different things to people, his level of common sense brought him to that conclusion, which i agree with
jalidav1 1 year ago
@jalidav1 Categorically mistaken jalidav. A theory in lay terminology is an idea, a theory in the scientific sense is an explanatory model that has been repeatedly tested against reality and never falsified. Please don't bother with the 'closed-minded' crap, it's woo speak for 'won't accept any old doggerel placed in front of you'. Common sense is a terrible method of evaluating reality, as 400 years of scientific endeavour has shown. Experimentation against the facts is the only arbiter.
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
@jalidav1 'no actual proof' - in science, this is unacceptable. You use data to construct hypotheses, not construct a hypothesis then see what facts can fit. I understand where you are coming from, but you do need to comprehend that the scientific method is an established method for falsification. Science doesn't look to 'prove' things, it looks to remove erroneous notions. Type in hypothetico-deductive in wiki or google to get where I am coming from.
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
@jalidav1 Pye's conjecture is no more valid than me making something up right now on the spot and failing to test for it. Secondly, in case it escaped your notice, he explicitly abandons the scientific method and spends hundreds of words attempting to justify it. So if his 'theory' is scientific, why does he need to undermine the long established, and clearly effective, scientific method? Liking something is not an excuse to credit it uncritically.
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
@TheSpearthrower but wasnt it stephen hawkins himself who said that when a scientific experiment is conducted, if the readings from the experiment differ from what was expected, ie the formula that was used brought about a different reaction than it should have, it is more often that the credulity of the person taking the readings is questioned rather than the formula itself, what i mean is in many cases they only take into account the 'fact' that backs up the original theory
jalidav1 1 year ago
@jalidav1 The issue there is with theoretical physics. It is based solely on mathematics, as such, an equation must be correct as it is its own proof. This is a different territory than the majority of science which is based solely upon empirical data, formed into a hypothetical model and used to make predictions that must be falsifiable. This is one reason why 'string theory' is not actually a scientific theory. It should be 'string conjecture', Hawkins has made similar observations.
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
@TheSpearthrower I must say it is nice to actually talk to someone on youtube without having them turn it into a slanging match for a change, thank you
jalidav1 1 year ago
@jalidav1 I'm a little too old to get into fights on the internet! :) But I will argue till the cows come home! I just see no need to personalise it.
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
in essence, through this research we will only ever travel in one direction no matter how right or wrong it is, I am not saying that Pye is correct in his findings but what I do enjoy about it is the idea of a different direction and the proof he uses to back it up, for instance the idea that neanderthal man has many different species and didn't evolve the way we are led to believe. Also the different number of chromosomes, right or wrong it is very interesting
jalidav1 1 year ago
@jalidav1 I'm glad you touched on this, as this is my own area of focus. I studied Anthropology and Human Evolution, with particular focus on Homo neanderthalensis. Pye's remarks are clearly from someone who has little to no knowledge of neanderthals, and he has quite literally made up a lot of false information to support his conjecture. I understand this is a specialist subject, but my warning is to always do independent research when someone rants about the 'experts'.
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
@jalidav1 I agree with you - the missing "link Is a lot of bull" . If we evolved from the primate/s there wouls have to be more than One missing link - one for each homo sapien race - forget about the missing link, it will never be found - it doesn't exsist. Science once taugh our solar system revolved around our earth - also that the earth was flat. - Things change as new/old things are discovered, I go with "Pye"
Mr21Franz 5 months ago
@Mr21Franz The men who wrote the bible thought the world was flat, science was not in charge, the church was.
Isaiah 40 : 22-24
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.”
I can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper, they are 2D. FLAT.
gregrutz 3 months ago
I think I'll reserve judgement until all the facts are in and scientists have had a chance to really study it.
PinkProgram 1 year ago
Cool stuff. One of the main reasons I use bittorrent is to download some of the science & documentary programs from British TV.
papafox 1 year ago
Thanks for the info! Some of my friends can't see some of the vids due to foreign rights!
LozTheAtheist 1 year ago
Great upload!
MidwinterSon 1 year ago
Another great video Loz, keep up with the education. G&J4U
GodandJesus4U 1 year ago
What a great specimen. Well done for posting, I love your vids.
2010Jedimaster 1 year ago 4