@odinata Actually, in the case of the centrifuge experiment, the selective pressure was measured in kilopascals. That's what makes your comment so hilarious.
wazooloo 2 weeks ago
...
A reading of the experiment Juby cites shows that this is not a true statement.
As usual, ratings disabled. Juby, you suck, and at only 1600 views, you aren't anywhere near the top. Please tell us what your scientific credentials are, because you don't seem to understand the paper on S. cerevisiae.
"Quantum mysticism is a term that has been used to refer to a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence or mystical world-views to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations."
I think Ian Juby is using a very liberal definition of the term "most discussed".
I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt he is amongst the top ten most discussed videos when there are videos which get more comments per week than he gets views.
Is he the most discussed in "religion" videos? "Science" videos?
Of course, the irony is not lost on me that I am discussing his video right now. lol!
10:00 Placing yourself among the greatest thinkers of all time? Are you kidding me? And falsifying their religious backgrounds and their own thoughts on the subject.
Example? Sure, how about an easy one.Blaise Pascal Quote: "the existence of God cannot be proved (or disproved) through reason." Another? sure? Louis Pasteur Quote:"religion has no more place in science than science has in religion." Wow, this is absolute deceit. How do you sleep at night? Let me guess baby jesus helps you?
C'mon wazooloo....enable ratings. If you (and Juby) are so sure of the veracity of this/these messages you should be receptive to opinions. Just sayin'
@TheJudoKevin That's exactly what I thought. He sounds so clueless about what he's reading. It's like he's a 14-year-old reading a calculus textbook saying that the definite integral can't possibly calculate the area under a curve because it involves going all the way to infinity and we all know that no one can ever get to infinity.
Ya got yer extremist on da one side (folks that claim de know God is) and yer extremist on da other side (folks that claim de know god is not) - Both o dem spending all de time trying to call de other fool. De all pretending to use de science, to win a philosophical argument dat has a historically simple n profound solution. We don know - we ain't gona know. Dis guy (Ian) be tellin ya things just so ya think dat his God is da boss of you. He say dat at the start, his boss God tell him a do dat.
@AMilitantAgnostic Foe how smart dat u is, yo gramma be wack foo! You's is rizight foe shizzle. Sorry I had too! But I do agree with what you are saying. ;)
8) TIME IS NOT A MECHANISM, IT DOES NOT PERFORM A PROCESS FOR EVOLUTION, THEREFORE, MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS DOES NOT HELP EVOLUTION AS THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS IMPLIES, BUT ONLY REFUTES AND MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE.
@sakar181 Your comment was very anti-intellectual for it was a bare assertion fallacy i.e. your hearsay worthless opinion. Care to substantiate your claim and then I will thoroughtly substantiate that you hate science and do not have a clue what the scientific method is and why Evolutionism is SCIENCE FICTION? GOOD LUCK. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
@sakar181 Your comment was very anti-intellectual for it was a bare assertion fallacy i.e. your hearsay worthless opinion. Care to substantiate your claim and then I will thoroughtly substantiate that you hate science and do not have a clue what the scientific method is and why Evolutionism is SCIENCE FICTION? GOOD LUCK. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Certainly. Juby makes the claim that a centrifuge was necessary to accomplish the results of the research in question. The published paper itself makes it clear that it was merely ancillary. You are idiot, and if you persist in spamming this comment section you will be blocked. I hope I make myself abundantly clear. I have had enough of you, so STFU or get blocked...NOW!
I hope you seee the humor in Juby's blatant lie which shows that he doesn't understand the term "selective pressure".
Selective pressure is a term that refers to "Factors fostering selection include limits on resources (nourishment, habitat space, mates) and the existence of threats (predators, disease, adverse weather). "
Juby claimed that these could be measured in "kilopascals"--like the "pressure" inside a bicycle tube>
@WildwoodClaire1 Is this your site to block me? The centrifuge was used, because it was needed to produce the result. “Merely ancillary" was not proven by the experiment; this is a bare assertion, a unsubstantiated hearsay until proven otherwise as the scientific method requires. Stop projecting pseudoscience/lies. The yeast was and is still yeast except that it was forced together like tiny bits of magnetic steel made into a bat magnet. This is why cell death broke up this unnatural arrangement
@sakar181 Histruthbeknown, has to be screwing with you. Nobody can be that unintelligent! I have a Mentally handicap student that can follow a long, with this subject just fine. That's why I think he is just trolling for attention. Ether that, or he really need's to pick up a basic biology book. :)
@sakar181 I live up north, and you just do not find people like that here. At least I hope that I never run into someone like that. I would hate to find out that I have all this education for nothing. If I would have known that the world was going to step back a few thousand years, I would have picked another career. Like ditch digging, or brick laying, or better yet an executioner. Funny thing is, all have a scientific foundation around them, in a broad aspect.
@BandOfAtheist You are a thorough ignoramus; take me on so I can prove it. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
NO ONE CAN CONDUCT OR HAVE SCIENCE/KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS THAT ARE IMAGINED/PRESUMED, WHICH NEVER HAPPENED, OR HAPPEN, AND WHICH CAN'T HAPPEN IN DEFIANCE OF THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF SCIENCE. NOBODY SAW, TESTED, DOCUMENTED, OR CAN REPRODUCE POND SCUM TO HUMAN EVOLUTION? THIS IS ONLY IMAGINED/PRESUMED, SCIENCE FICTION, AND NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER COULD HAPPEN AS IT DEFIES THE LAWS OF SCIENCE.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Hey bro, or bitch! whatever you prefer. You need to get your ass checked out! That troll burrowed so deep in your anus, that it must be manipulating you mouth. because you talk a lot of shit for a eight year old little girl! Your momma should have beat your little ass with a science book, not the bible!
YOUR RESPONSE IS TYPICAL OF THE ANTI-INTELLECTUAL THAT RESORTS TO FALLACIOUS TACTICS I.E. RIDICULE, APPEAL TO EMOTION, HEARSAY, AD HOMINEM.
ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT SO-CALLED SCIENCE BOOKS ARE ACTUALLY FULL OF PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND DELIBERATE LIES? ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT SO-CALLED SCIENTISTS HAVE LIED; DO LIE AND WILL LIE AS WELL AS MAKE ERRORS? ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT SO-CALLED SCIENCE BOOKS MUST ALWAYS CHANGE WHEN MORE ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING COMES TO LIGHT?
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN The world would be a better place if your dad would have just pulled out and came on your moms face! Like anybody wants to debate a troll like you. Whats the point, you can't fix stupid!
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN What the hell do you think this is, Mr. Rogers house! It's the internet, and people like you do not deserve respect! I can say any god damn thing I want to you. What, you going to send your god after me, dumbass! You try to pollute other retards 'like yourself' minds, with anti- science BS. People like you are holding back real science, just because you are to ignorant to even try to look up the BS that you are claiming, does not mean that others are. Troll!!!!
@BandOfAtheist THE EVIL LYING ATHEIST WITH A REPROBATE MIND. OF COURSE YOU WILL SAY WHAT YOU WANT WHICH HAPPENS TO BE ATHEISTIC LIES. YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS AND WHY POND SCUM TO YOU EVOLUTION CANNOT USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. LET ME TELL YOU. NOBODY SAW MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS COLLABORATING TO CONTRIVE LIFE OR TRANSMUTE IT INTO EVERY LIFE FORM THAT EVER LIVED. THIS IS ONLY IMAGINED/ SCIENCE FICTION. CREATIONIST CHRISTIANS FOUNDED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN All the BS, you keep repeating over and over, is so easy to look up, so why cant you do it? You are simply a very dense person. Now I know why you're so ass backwards! You're a creationist! Just because something in science can't be explained yet, does not mean that it won't be in the future. And when science figures out your pond scum BS, what creatard crap will you fall back on then? and again, and again, and again! PS. You are still a troll!
@BandOfAtheist Science is just a word; to get it powers is to commit the Reification Fallacy. It is fallible limited humans that try to understand how God's creation works using the scientific method which is empirical and based on the direct observation of testable repeatable phenomenon. Therefore, Evil Evolutionism is not a bona fide scientific theory; it is only science fiction, atheistic fairy tales. Wishful Thinking is also fallacious and unscientific to uphold a fairy tale without logic.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Okay, you do know that they make pills for mentally unstable people like you?, And straitjackets, shock therapy, padded rooms, etc. After all the comments you received from the other 800 people that prove you are wrong, you still think that you know everything. You don't have very many friends, do you? If any at all! Until you can prove that there is a god, you are just another crazy person that talks to yourself! I bet that your teachers were proud of you! lol! ;)
@BandOfAtheist don't waste to much time on the boozo. He really is either a moron who thinks typing in caps makes him look smart, or is a troll that really has nothing better to do then troll on one video every single day.
I tried to interact with this user and all that happened was, he ignored every point I brought up, claimed I did fallcies without backing up how I did them, typed in caps and went on and on about shit that was never brought up. He's a loon.
@BandOfAtheist LOVER OF FALLACIOUS LOGIC THAT OF COURSE IS ANTI-INTELLECTUAL. IT IS ALSO FALLACIOUS TO USE THE ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM FALLACY AS IF SCIENCE IS BASED ON MAJORITY OPINION, A DEMOCRATIC VOTE, PUBLIC OPINION ETC. THIS IS TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC. IF YOU CANNOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE, REPEATEDLY TEST A REPEATING PHENOMENON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD CANNOT BE USED. THIS IS WHY EVIL EVOLUTIONISM IS PURE ATHEISTIC SCIENCE FICTION.
ONLY A SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE/BEING CAN CONTRIVE WHAT HUMANS CANNOT COPY
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. I have a masters of history, and teach 8th grade history, and you're going to call me anti-intellectual?
@BandOfAtheist It is laughable that with all your alleged education that you would act so uncivilized and so anti-intellectual by resorting to fallacious tactic after fallacious logic over and ove again. You are more so anti-intellecual for not being able to freely think and critique evil evolutionism to conclude it is unscientific atheistic fairy tale just-so-story telling without logic and evidence. WHY IS YOUR EDUCATION INSUFFICIENT TO REALIZE THAT EVOLUTIONISM IS A COSMIC LIE?
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Alternately, self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals. You are what we call a self-described intellectual. You just think you're intelligent, when in REALITY, you're a nonsensical, unintelligent, preposterous, unreasonable, ludicrous, simple-minded, irrational, meaningless, mentally incompetent, harebrained, platitudinous, plebeian, unsophisticated, feeble-minded simpleton! ;)
YOU CONTINUALLY CONFIRM YOUR ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM. YOU RESORTED TO FALLACIOUS TACTICS AGAIN. EDUCATE YOURSELF ON WHY THESE TACTICS ARE FALLACIOUS AND ANTI-INTELLECTUAL: RIDICULE, APPEAL TO EMOTION, AD HOMINEM, STRAW MAN, APPEAL TO SPITE.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Are you unable to answer any questions that I've asked you? You just keep saying the same thing over and over. I think that you need to look up some more words in the dictionary, that you do not understand, and learn a few more. You're vocabulary is the same few words again and again. you should try to learn a few more, then maybe you would sound a little better then a parrot.
WHAT QUESTION WAS NOT ANSWERED? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
YOU CONTINUALLY CONFIRM YOUR ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM. YOU RESORTED TO FALLACIOUS TACTICS AGAIN. EDUCATE YOURSELF ON WHY THESE TACTICS ARE FALLACIOUS AND ANTI-INTELLECTUAL: RIDICULE, APPEAL TO EMOTION, AD HOMINEM, STRAW MAN, APPEAL TO SPITE.
@sakar181 Sorry for mingling in your conversation, but I believe, in evolutionary terms, that our educational system is selecting for the weakest reasoning people, because only the latter can believe in evolutionary nonsense fairytales. Histruthbeknown is negatively selected, while you and your band seem to be positively selected, and that is worrisome...to have people never questioning what they are told and never being able to have a view. Congratulations, you belong to that group!
To accept creationist dogma is to be the indoctrinated cultist. Evolution has mountains of peer reviewed evidence backing it up, and creationism has exactly nada. You want to bitch and moan that 'evolutionists are indoctrinating school kids', then why not get off your ass, scientifically disprove evolution, and with the god damned Nobel?
No, you wont do that. Namely, because it's impossible. But you will continue to blather on about topics you have no clue about.
@sakar181@sakar181 I do not have to disprove evolution because it has been disproved. I do real scientific research in the neurosciences to cure Parkinson's and my creationist worldview does not impede my performance. Your statements about getting a Nobel and disproving evolution shows that you are far away from real science and that you have no clue about scientific research. Stop being a parrot and start thinking and criticizing. Be humble and hear other views, maybe they are right.
@goongoogle You do research in neurosciences but you are a creationist and you claim that evolution has been disproved scientifically? What an incredible piece of bullshit. You really expect anyone besides other creationists to believe this whopper? You're probably some retard living in a basement with computer holding bookmarks to all the creationist websites - which is where you do your "research".
Yes, me and the whole of the evolutionary biology scientific community are incorrect, and laboring under delusion.
Or, is it the minority creationists who are laboring under theocratic delusion, inspired by mideaster desert goat herders who were likely under the influence.
@sakar181 Science is not a democracy dear friend. Stop looking down on peoples ideas, maybe they can be right too or maybe they know something more than you do genius.
Yea, it's not. It's a *meritocracy*, and those ideas which have no merit, IE creationism, are rightly ignored, along with all other asinine random thoughts. Computer engineers dont get to say 'evolutions wrong cause thermodynamics!' just as biologists dont go around claiming 'gravitational THEORY is wrong cause nucleotides dont bond in vermouth.'
If you want to have a say in biology, you become a BIOLOGIST, not a quantum theorist, and not a pastor/reverend/huckster.
And I will look down on ALL moronic, un-evidenced, nondemonstrable, mythologically based claims until they can provide more than hallucinations, holy books and ad homs.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@sakar181 "Evolution has mountains of peer reviewed evidence backing it up" And so what? Have you ever hand you article being peer reviewed? Do you know the games that are played, that have nothing to do about science? For example, PNAS would accept any article on the basis of being forwarded by one of its members? Yes, no or little peer review. Has your publication ever been plagiarized by its reviewers? Science is business and you have to go along... Wake up, it is not the ideal world.
@goongoogle Why don't you make your point by debating directly with me instead of stroking your ego with comments to those equally unscientific. OTHERWISE, SHUT UP IF YOU CANNOT PUT UP.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN You surely are too agressive in your reply, it shouldn't be so my friend. From scanning your comments, I thought you were on my side. I tried to defend your arguments against evolution...???
@goongoogle I am very clearly against evil evolutionism because it is nothing more than atheistic fairy tale lies devoid of logic and evidence i.e. atheistic science fiction. You used my YT name in what I interpreted was the ridicule fallacy. Based on your response I may have misunderstood you. I applogize for that.
You must be very clear and strong with the reprobate mind of the atheist i.e. strong love is all they understand. I expose the lies and the liars they blindly believe.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN I'd like you to explain how evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, because I entertain a strong suspicion that you have not the least understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics whatsoever.
Oh no... That guy again! HTBK is a lost cause as far as I'm concerned. Claire, save yourself the headache. I've spoke to him before and he believed that if stars were as far as they are believed to be, they should appear as 'lines' rather than 'dots' in the sky!
STARS CANNOT APPEAR AS POINTS OF LIGHT WHEN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM [THE SUN] IS TRAVELLING THROUGH SPACE ON ITS ORBIT AS IS THE STARS IN VIEW WITH A FIXED SPEED OF LIGHT OTHERWISE YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT A CLOUD OF LIGHT FROM EVERY SOURCE. DO THE MATH.
@June28July OKAY, PROVIDE THE QUOTE AND THE WHEN AND WHERE SO ALL CAN CHECK IT. WHETHER I USE A CLOUD OF LIGHT OR THE USE OF LINES OF LIGHT TO SHOW THAT THE STAR COULD NOT BE A VISIBLE POINT OF LIGHT EXPRESSES THE SAME ISSUE. I COULD USE BULLETS FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. IF A BULLET TAKES 2 YEARS TO ARRIVE AT YOUR EYE, IT CAN ONLY ARRIVE AT YOUR EYE IF THE SOURCE OF LIGHT AND YOUR EYE HAVE NOT MOVED OFF THE SAME LINE/TRAJECTORY. WITH A STAR & YOU/EARTH MOVING, THE BULLET CANNOT BE SEEN. HOW IS THAT?
@June28July How convenient that you cannot substantiate you hearsay fallacious comment. Why do you make a statement you cannot defend?
It is tautological that light radiates in all directions from the sun, stars ie light sources. This will be true of all such light sources which are moving as well, but since only a near source not moving much can only be seen as a point of light at the accepted speed of light, all other light will appear as a cloud of light without clear resolution of the source
I made a statement I cannot defend because there's really nothing to win or lose in this discussion. The only people who care are you and I.
I'd love for you to illustrate this argument in a video. We're going to need visual aids to settle this issue once and for all otherwise I don't see any progress becoming a reality.
@WildwoodClaire1 The SLoT applies to Open, Closed, Isolated, biological & chemical systems. If you are going to use the nonsensical claim that the earth is an Open System because it receives energy from the sun to pacify a blind belief in evil evolutionism, then I will expect you to Open your Mind to the Closed system of the Universe. The universe was wound up [by God] and it has been winding down [the curse] as does everything that is not sustained by intelligent intervention [only God could].
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN By the way, there is a button on the left side of your keyboard that reads "Caps Lock." You may wish to click it, because typing in all caps merely enhances one's perception that you are an utter nincompoop.
@WildwoodClaire1 YOUR/MY WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER IN SMALL OR CAPS LETTERS. YOU USED THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE A FALLACIOUS TACTIC I.E. THE RIDICULE FALLACY.
WHAT IS PROFOUND REMAINS PROFOUND REGARDLESS OF THE TEXT SIZE AS DOES FOOLISH GIBBERISH WHICH IS WHAT YOUR RESPONSE ULTIMATELY IS.
6) MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE CANNOT COLLABORATE TO CONTRIVE LIFE OR TO TRANSMUTE IT INTO ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT EVER LIVED. THIS IS ONLY WHAT THE EVOLUTIONARY FAIRY TALE CLAIMS.
7) ALL THINGS EVOLUTIONARY ARE FALSE, NEVER OCCURRED, AND SCIENCE FICTION; THEREFORE, THESE CAREERS ARE OXYMORONIC:
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY COSMOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY PALEOANTHROPOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST OF ANY SORT AND ITS PEER REVIEW PROCESS ETC.
3) ONE CANNOT HAVE SCIENCE/KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS THAT NEVER OCCURRED, WHICH DO NOT OCCUR AND WHICH CANNOT OCCUR IN DEFIANCE OF ALL THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF SCIENCE. POND SCUM TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS ONLY IMAGINED/PRESUMED.
4) EVOLUTIONISM IS THE RELIGION AND SCIENCE FICTION OF THE ATHEISTIC WHO HATE THE TRUTH/REAL SCIENCE.
5) THE DANGER OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE EXISTS WHENEVER AN IDEOLOGY I.E. PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM IS TRYING TO RULE OVER EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.
Really? I don't want people to hear creationist stuff? I'm sorry, but I do want people to here creationist stuff, cause it's a perfect example of how to defeat strawmen. Really, that's all creationist do, they defeat a strawman of evolution.
Though I will have to say, nice graphics and all...kind of wasted on a such a thing (creationist stuff).
So, a good question that must be asked is, "why haven't you guys ever proven that your god is real?" Disproving evolution won't do it.
@Krensharpaw You don’t know what a straw man argument is or how it works. You used the bare assertion fallacy with your own comment which of course is anti-intellectual.
As for God, all his claims can be treated as testable predictions. Real science is catching up with what God claimed and confirming it to be true. Ex. the instruction/commands in DNA [God's speech/design] as well as the DNA chemical code can only come from a mind, and the mind must be superior to the human mind.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Rather funny since you don't seem to understand that creationst try to debunk a strawman version of atheism (a untrue one fyi). Rather funny how you claim I don't knowhow to use it, yet I do..funny.
It's rather funny how the people of the bible never knew about DNA or anything like that. Rather funny how creationst like you don't believe in evolution, yet your very beliefs have evolved. Funny again.
@Krensharpaw You have not substantiated your claims again. You are just making hearsay statements. What atheistic straw man argument are you talking about?
DNA is a name humans give for the observation made about God's creation. The relevant point is that information/commands/instruction can only come from a superior mind to that of humans. Mindless and lifeless chemical elements cannot contrive a language code and semantic meaning. Humans with intelligent minds created computer code/programs.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Seems you lack the ability to read my comments. Do that and then get back to me and I might take you seriously.
Also, show that you understand evolution and form arguments that don't make you look like everyother creationist who is to lazy to read into so that they can argue against it proper like. Til then, I have no reason to contiue this little back and forth since you KO'ed yourself with your lack of knowledge on the subject at hand and what I was talking about.
@Krensharpaw I WILL TRANSLATE WHAT YOU SAID FOR ALL THE FOLKS ON YOUTUBE TO UNDERSTAND YOU: 1) YOU LIKE TO JUST MAKE CLAIMS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE BECAUSE I LOVE TO BE LAZY AND SOUND INTELLIGENT TO MYSELF.
2) YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOUR FAIRY TALE OF EVOLUTION CLAIMS AND WHY IT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE/SCIENCE FICTION THAT MUST BE IMAGINED AND BELIEVED WITHOUT LOGIC AND EVIDENCE BECAUSE YOU LIKE THE FAIRY TALE OF EVOLUTION BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO GOD OR OTHERS. FACEPALM!
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN also, just read my first comment, that should've been "a strawman version of evolution". But creationist also try to debate a strawman version of atheism as well. Shockofgod (who you seemed to be subbed to) is a fine example of that.
Just wanted to clear that up, so there would be no confsuion. Anyway, have a nice time studying up on evolution and then forming arguments against it.
@Krensharpaw You are an extremely ignorant person that just will not use common sense. Let me help you.
NOBODY CAN STUDY EVOLUTION FROM POND SCUM TO HUMANS.
THIS EVENT IS ONLY PRESUMED TO HAVE HAPPENED, BUT NOBODY SAW THESE EVENTS, DOCUMENTED THEM, TESTED THEM AND CAN REPRODUCE THEM AS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD REQUIRES.
THEREFORE, NOBODY CAN STUDY, OR HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EVENTS THAT NEVER HAPPENED, OR HAPPEN AND WHICH CANNOT HAPPEN IN DEFIANCE OF THE APPLICABLE LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OF SCIENCE.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN also, judging from this part in one of your comments (in caps locks of course, cause that makes you look smater :))
" EVOLUTION AS THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS IMPLIES"
The very fact that you seem to not understand that that law is dealing with a closed system tells me that you don't even know what you're talking about. This is why I can't take creationists like you seriously at all. You don't even know about the things you try to use to prove your belief.
@WildwoodClaire1 Your comment is anti-intellectual. You resorted to the ridicule and appeal to emotion fallacy. You did not substantiate your claim. Opinions are worlthless.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN How so? Ian isn't an "intellectual," he's an under-educated clown, and surely the proper response to a clown is laughter. Incidentally, unlike you and Ian, I actually read the paper in question and Ian's "anti-intellectual" ridicule completely misrepresents it. One can debate whether he did so from dishonesty or if he was simply incapable of understanding it.
@WildwoodClaire1 YOU ARE NOT AN INTELLECTUAL FOR USING THE FALLACIOUS TACTICS OF RIDICULE & APPEAL TO EMOTION. WHY DIDN'T YOU MAKE YOUR CASE INSTEAD WITH SUBSTANCE; BECAUSE YOU CAN'T? YOU ARE A NEAR IGNORAMUS. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW, WHICH IS INFINITELY MORE THAN WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW, WHICH IS ACTUALLY MOSTLY WRONG. CAN YOU MAKE A FLEA OR A PEA FROM CHEMICAL ELEMENTS? NO YOU CAN'T AND NEITHER CAN ANYONE ELSE. YEAST CELLS FORCED TOGETHER IS UNNATURAL AND IS NOT MULTICELLULAR LIFE
@WildwoodClaire1 EVIL BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONISM REQUIRES MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE TO MAGICALLY COLLABORATE WITHOUT BRAINS/MINDS AND WITHOUT BEING ALIVE TO FORM A SELF-REPLICATING SIMPLE SINGLE CELL. HOWEVER, A CELL HAS MANY PARTS THAT MUST BE MADE JUST-SO AND MUST EXIST AND BE FORMED IN AN INSTANT, BECAUSE THE LIVING CELL IS AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSITION. THE ODDS ARE ZERO TO FORM NATURALLY. CREATIONISM BELIEVES A SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE/BEING DUN-IT INSTEAD.
I don't doubt that you have a PhD...I can buy one online for 400 dollars and I don't doubt that you're doing research. What I do doubt is that your research peer reviewed science. I have access to virtually all of the peer reviewed scientific journals. If you're truly a PhD, I'd love to read some of your research articles, just give me the citation.
@rclosser1 I assure you my PhD, MSc and BSc are legitimate (University ranked 25th in the world), and I have 1 PubMed available peer-reviewed article (IF of 8.2 in Cell Death and Differentiation, 2007...) and 3 under review (PhD thesis). My subject of research is in the neurosciences and not in creation science. Should I stop having a worldview because I do scientific research? On the other hand, I do not like to give away my identity. Would you also post your real name?
"Should I stop having a worldview because I do scientific research?" If I may intervene in this discussion. How is "not believing in evolution" a worldview? Or do you mean being a creationist?
After all, evolution do explain the diversity of lifeforms based on observations and experimentation (so we could say based on reality) while creation...well.. let's say it has yet to provide a single argument in it's favour. So, how is "not-believing in evolution" is a worldview?
@Atharkas That is a false statement. Nobody saw or sees mindless and lifeless chemical elements collaborating to contrive a simple single self-replicating cell or its transmutation into all the life forms that ever lived. This is only imagined/presumed but was never directly observed, repeatedly tested, documented and it is not reproducible. Therefore, the claims of evolutionism are only fairy tales, and the claims of evolution cannot be scientifically tested as per the scientific method.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN yet again a creationist tlaking out of his ass. You can look on you-tube and see that it has been tested, observed and the like.
Yet, the thing you believe in such as noah's flood, life coming from dirt and a rib, etc. You didn't see either. Can't be tested.
So the later part of your comment goin on about fairy tales and being imagined/presumed, can be and should be applied to your own beliefs. Rahter odd how you missed that.
@Krensharpaw Let me show you how you are totally ignorant.
NOBODY SAW THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF ALL COME TO LIFE OR CHANGE INTO ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT EVER LIVED. WHERE CAN WE SEE THIS IN REAL LIFE NOT ON YOUTUBE?
IT CAN BE CHEMICALLY TESTED THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT HUMANS ARE MADE OF EXIST IN THE EARTH AND IN A HUMAN RIB WHICH GOD USED TO MAKE ADAM AND EVE.
"Nobody saw or sees mindless and lifeless chemical elements collaborating to contrive a simple single self-replicating cell or its transmutation into all the life forms that ever lived. "
That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Don't you know the difference? Evolution explains the diversity of life when speciations occurs in populations via the process of natural selection.
Also, self replicating organic molecules were formed in Rebek's experiments.
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
Concerning evolution, which is a theory developed to explain life’s origins and diversity, it violates all tenets of scientific method, among which the inability to observe and repeat major changes in life forms (speciation).
"Concerning evolution, which is a theory developed to explain life’s origins and diversity"
Sorry to correct you, but evolution only applies to the diversity of life, not it's origin.
"the inability to observe and repeat major changes in life forms (speciation)"
Except of course in experiments demonstrating unicellular to multicellular transition or, as in the Lenski's experiment, the passage from an E.Coli population to a brand new specie that cannot be called E.Coli.
@Atharkas Nobody can perform an experiment to directly test evolution at the macro level--we do not observe new species arising from old ones nor a living cell out of non-living (law of abiogenesis). One has to interpret observations according to his worldview. Therefore, an atheist worldview would tend to explain the diversity of life by omitting God (usually saying that there is enough time to allow it by natural means) and a creationist would tend to explain this diversity by God’s actions.
"Nobody can perform an experiment to directly test evolution at the macro level"
Except, again, Richard Lenski's experiments, and please, do not use the excuse "it's still a bacteria" that so many creationists uses. With the numbers of species of bacterias existing, it would bring a shame to your scientific credential.
"a living cell out of non-living (law of abiogenesis)."
You do realize there are stages prior to the cell level? Simple self replicating organic molecules.
@Atharkas Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it. While I am aware of all things that you are mentioning, believe me, I still tend to disregard evolutionary mechanisms as a cause for life's origins (yes , it is evolution) and its diversification.
"Why don't you try being neutral in science?" Hahaha..think about. You simply cannot be objective because you cannot dissociate yourself from your own reasoning. Since I came to believe that there must be a greater cause, I interpret
"a cause for life's origins (yes , it is evolution)"
Actually, no. The origin of life on earth could be panspermia via meteorites, like it could be engineered by an intelligent life form or yes, by deities. Abiogenesis is mostly biochemistry and, in the case of successful autocatalyst self replicating molecule with heredity, a crude version of natural selection can occur.
@Atharkas things from that perspective. Whereas, somedy not believing in a greater cause, will interpret data/observations in light of this perspective. For example, although we observe evidence of a Big Bang, we interpret that the universe must have originated, but it could have been by a Creator (my perspective) or by no Creator (your perspective).
That is the thing, do not interpret, only use the data, if there are unknown areas, then you can hypothesize about your deity's handiwork. Like Newton who could explain the movement of planets with gravity, but where he could not, there he imput a god.
The belief in a deity is irrelevant to what cause the big bang. It could have been a cosmic fart from a neighboring multiverse, hence the expansion gas formation (ok, I know it was silly).
@Atharkas Unbelievable, have you ever actually done scientific research? Do you have any respect for other people's views? "The belief in a deity is irrelevant to what cause the big bang." Then, what you are saying is that the disbelief in a deity is more relevant, right?
"Then, what you are saying is that the disbelief in a deity is more relevant, right?"
Nope, all I said was that a belief in deities (this include non-belief) is irrelevant to what cause the big bang. Sure, you attribute it to a deity. As in my example, an atheist might attribute it to a cosmic fart.
@Atharkas I have a biochemistry background and I am always amazed by the intelligence and complexity of biological systems. It is difficult for me to imagine that a cell can arise by natural means, as it is hard to imagine that a pentium computer can arise without its designer. If you think that a pentium computer is as complex as the simplest cell, reconsider your biology courses.
"If you think that a pentium computer is as complex as the simplest cell, reconsider your biology courses."
Do note, however, that a pentium is not a self replicating organism and that, again, there is simpler forms of replicating organic molecules than cells (which is, after all, be several separate organisms (at least two considering the mitochondria) living in a symbiotic way. This is, again, linked with the mixotricha paradoxa example stated earlier).
@Atharkas What are you talking about, I was expecting a higher order conversation not a reiteration of your highschool biology courses..."simpler forms of replicating organic molecules" Just tell me one example of such self-replicating molecule that exists outside the cell or without the need of a cell. Nope, mitochondrion is not a valid answer.
@Atharkas Both kinds of thinking resort to subjective means to conclude the one or the other and, frankly, you cannot do otherwise (impossible to be objective). Therefore, whether you like it or not, your worldview plays a major role in interpreting scientific data. If you are a real scientist, you should have realized it by now. Thus, by saying that “evolution explains diversity of lifeforms based on observations and experimentation”, you are largely ignorant of the facts.
@Atharkas Current observations and experimentations rely on the fact that lifeforms change, but there is no-nil-zero evidence that they can complexify to the point of getting new forms and species. Nobody, even a creationist, would deny the scientific data suggesting change at the micro level, but one can interpret it according to his worldview. Trust me kiddo, start by reexamining the evidence about evolution and especially the objectivity and truthfulness of what you advance!
"there is no-nil-zero evidence that they can complexify to the point of getting new forms and species"
Actually, there is, from unicellular to multicellular (not only this yeast experiments), but also symbiotic relationships to the point of acting as a single cell (mixotricha paradoxa) and, of course, comparative ERVs. Again, you might want to have an actual neutral stance instead of ignoring the results of 150 years of research.
@Atharkas Wake up my friend, cell aggregation has been achieved before, it is nothing new. In fact, it is a very weak experiment that would not pass peer review process, unless it was published in PNAS. The only thing they prove is that yeast cells can aggregate and survive, point. It is a long stretch to maintain that a multicellular "organism" was generated, especially when no prior genetic change took place. And since they maintain that the newly acquired property was heritable, I doubt that
"In fact, it is a very weak experiment that would not pass peer review process, unless it was published in PNAS"
It is published in the PNAS .
"It is a long stretch to maintain that a multicellular "organism" was generated, especially when no prior genetic change took place"
Except that the multicellular yeast displayes division of labors and even apoptosis. If the cells were the same as the original unicellular, such observation wouldn't have been possible.
Sure I do, to you it is too complex to form naturally, so your deity did it. It's just a classic "god of the gaps" argument (it is not an insult). Just remember that throughout history, the gaps filled with the ideas of deities has narrowed down with each new discoveries.
@Atharkas ...mutations were the cause of. At the cellular level, I suspect that the cells have formed homotypic interactions easily detroyed after magnesium and calcium depletion.
@rclosser1 Dear friend, I do not know your background or whether it is worth initiating a discussion with you here, but I simply gave you my scientific credentiels to make the point that there are real scientists who are able to do translational science to advance society (and to be creationists too at the same time). I know that I am a real scientist, not because I am an alumni of top-ranked institution, but because I am able to appropriately use logic in investigating the truth.
hahaha Einstein was a pantheist at the most. But it's irrelevant who believed in what. My point is that creationists COULD be doing science but they are not. They are only worried about breaking down evolution. REAL scientists don't have the time to post videos on youtube with their beliefs, they are in labs doing research of important issues of our time. Creationism is a religion and not a science...that's why it's always considered unconstitutional to teach it to kids in school.
How can you be sure that I, for example, am not a real scientist?????
In fact, it is funny, because I currently wear a lab coat and doing first hand scientific research (immunohistochemistry to be precise) in a legitimate institution, ranked 25th in the world for medical research. Yes, believe it or not, I, a creationist, have a PhD degree. I know many PhD's in my institution too that do not believe in evolution.
I like this critique of evolution as I think all sciences should be critiqued. But why stop at evolution? Many theories in physics, chemistry, etc.. only have indirect evidence that support them. But if the creationists are right, though, then why aren't they the ones working on cures for cancers, diseases, and novel drugs? Creationism leads to no productive end. All scientific theories have gaps in them, but gaps alone will not disprove a theory. Gaps are just questions yet to be answered.
@rclosser1 So let me rephrase your statement as logically as I can: Creationists have theories--If theories advanced by creationists are right, but they are not--creationists cannot perform basic scientific reseach and translational reseach.--
@rclosser1 1-Theories can be advanced by anybody 2-Scientific theories have sets of rules, main rule is to avoid logical fallacy 4-Creationists and non-creationists are able to advance scientific theories if they are logical
So, it seems very illogical to conclude, on the basis of a false premiss (Newton, Einstein, Pasteur are creationists), that creationists cannot reason and cannot produce valid scientific theories and research.
3) ONE CANNOT HAVE SCIENCE/KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS THAT NEVER OCCURRED, WHICH DO NOT OCCUR AND WHICH CANNOT OCCUR IN DEFIANCE OF ALL THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF SCIENCE. POND SCUM TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS ONLY IMAGINED/PRESUMED.
4) EVOLUTIONISM IS THE RELIGION AND SCIENCE FICTION OF THE ATHEISTIC WHO HATE THE TRUTH/REAL SCIENCE.
5) THE DANGER OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE EXISTS WHENEVER AN IDEOLOGY I.E. PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM IS TRYING TO RULE OVER EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.
6) MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE CANNOT COLLABORATE TO CONTRIVE LIFE OR TO TRANSMUTE IT INTO ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT EVER LIVED. THIS IS ONLY WHAT THE EVOLUTIONARY FAIRY TALE CLAIMS.
7) ALL THINGS EVOLUTIONARY ARE FALSE, NEVER OCCURRED, AND SCIENCE FICTION; THEREFORE, THESE CAREERS ARE OXYMORONIC:
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY COSMOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY PALEOANTHROPOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST OF ANY SORT AND ITS PEER REVIEW PROCESS ETC.
4:04 "Which came first the multicellular organism, or the centrifuge"
Well if you had read the paper you so kindly provided, the answer is clear, the multicellular life came first.
Further programed cell death is a vital function in real world multicellular organisms.
Why did you feel the need to lie about that? Do you feel your argument has such little merit you can't represent your opponent position honestly?
Craigmw45 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata Actually, in the case of the centrifuge experiment, the selective pressure was measured in kilopascals. That's what makes your comment so hilarious.
wazooloo 2 weeks ago
...
A reading of the experiment Juby cites shows that this is not a true statement.
odinata 1 week ago
I LOVE this stupid cunt!
lizoir 3 weeks ago
This is a parody, right?
lewisner 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
As usual, ratings disabled. Juby, you suck, and at only 1600 views, you aren't anywhere near the top. Please tell us what your scientific credentials are, because you don't seem to understand the paper on S. cerevisiae.
Ilicium 3 weeks ago
"Quantum mysticism is a term that has been used to refer to a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence or mystical world-views to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations."
odinata 3 weeks ago
I think Ian Juby is using a very liberal definition of the term "most discussed".
I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt he is amongst the top ten most discussed videos when there are videos which get more comments per week than he gets views.
Is he the most discussed in "religion" videos? "Science" videos?
Of course, the irony is not lost on me that I am discussing his video right now. lol!
qabala 3 weeks ago
@qabala
Seriously Ian, what is your metric?
qabala 3 weeks ago
I know people who worked on this project-I was almost one of them. They think this video is hilarious.
DarkJakable 3 weeks ago
@DarkJakable
I think the most hilarious part is that Juby claimed that the "selective pressure" was measured in "kilopascals"....
odinata 3 weeks ago
I took an intelligent poop today. . . . It wiped as it slid out. *Da da da dum *rimshot
pumpstations 3 weeks ago
I can't believe anyone takes this clown seriously. He is definitive proof of the validity o the the Dunning Kruger Effect.
harussell 3 weeks ago
10:00 Placing yourself among the greatest thinkers of all time? Are you kidding me? And falsifying their religious backgrounds and their own thoughts on the subject.
Example? Sure, how about an easy one.Blaise Pascal Quote: "the existence of God cannot be proved (or disproved) through reason." Another? sure? Louis Pasteur Quote:"religion has no more place in science than science has in religion." Wow, this is absolute deceit. How do you sleep at night? Let me guess baby jesus helps you?
pumpstations 3 weeks ago
Why do electrons bond with protons?
Because they CHOOSE to--they are intelligent, and they were made intelligent by the SUPREME INTELLIGENCE....
odinata 3 weeks ago
C'mon wazooloo....enable ratings. If you (and Juby) are so sure of the veracity of this/these messages you should be receptive to opinions. Just sayin'
ProofPleez 3 weeks ago
"They used gravity to turn a single celled creature into a multicellular creature" - where is Desertphile when we need him?
TheJudoKevin 3 weeks ago
@TheJudoKevin That's exactly what I thought. He sounds so clueless about what he's reading. It's like he's a 14-year-old reading a calculus textbook saying that the definite integral can't possibly calculate the area under a curve because it involves going all the way to infinity and we all know that no one can ever get to infinity.
MultiPaulinator 3 weeks ago
@MultiPaulinator Nonsense. Buzz Lightyear can go to infinity and beyond.
LoonytoadQuack 3 weeks ago
Fantastic video!
God Bless!
VitoArc 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
Lol, you disabled ratings? Pathetic! Was it that bad? Poor crazy fat ass :'(
Kenjitsuka 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Note how "proto-intelligence" was never defined by circus...
All he said was "Google it."
I invite any and all do do just that--as I did.
Perhaps someone else would be willing to show me the relation between this "google search" and his statement:
""At the least macromolecules are proto-intelligent...."
The first Google hit is about Universalism.....
odinata 3 weeks ago
Oh shoot--I realized I just asked you to DEFINE something...
this is where you turn tail and run--I forgot!
Well, shoot.
Perhaps you could just explain how proto-intelligence becomes intelligence?
odinata 3 weeks ago
@odinata
Perhaps you could open your mind to new ideas. Oh shoot--I realized I just asked you to open your mind and read a book NOT written by Dawkins...
this is where you turn tail and run--I forgot!
Well, shoot.
Perhaps you could put forth an argument.
circusOFprecision 3 weeks ago
@circusOFprecision
Is the new idea that you would like me to open my mind up to called "Universalism"?
odinata 3 weeks ago
Dear god, the stupidity and dishonesty... it hurts.
LoonytoadQuack 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
@TheScienceFoundation
A liar and an intellectually fraudulent coward, that is what you are.
circusOFprecision 3 weeks ago
@circusOFprecision I see you still haven't gotten a grasp on what psychological projection is.
TheScienceFoundation 3 weeks ago
Was für ein Idiot!
alex64120 3 weeks ago
@alex64120 Du bist ein idiot original meine freund. Was my German OK? Sorry if your comment was not adressed to me.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
Ya got yer extremist on da one side (folks that claim de know God is) and yer extremist on da other side (folks that claim de know god is not) - Both o dem spending all de time trying to call de other fool. De all pretending to use de science, to win a philosophical argument dat has a historically simple n profound solution. We don know - we ain't gona know. Dis guy (Ian) be tellin ya things just so ya think dat his God is da boss of you. He say dat at the start, his boss God tell him a do dat.
AMilitantAgnostic 3 weeks ago
@AMilitantAgnostic Foe how smart dat u is, yo gramma be wack foo! You's is rizight foe shizzle. Sorry I had too! But I do agree with what you are saying. ;)
BandOfAtheist 3 weeks ago
I think there is a big difference between 'talked about' and 'laughed at'.
stratocaster539 3 weeks ago
So amusing watching creationists try to interpret results that any AP biology student could understand.
Scratch that. It's "soul" crushingly depressing.
sakar181 3 weeks ago
8) TIME IS NOT A MECHANISM, IT DOES NOT PERFORM A PROCESS FOR EVOLUTION, THEREFORE, MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS DOES NOT HELP EVOLUTION AS THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS IMPLIES, BUT ONLY REFUTES AND MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
Holy hell, you are one of the most scientifically illiterate people on the face of the planet.
sakar181 3 weeks ago
@sakar181 Your comment was very anti-intellectual for it was a bare assertion fallacy i.e. your hearsay worthless opinion. Care to substantiate your claim and then I will thoroughtly substantiate that you hate science and do not have a clue what the scientific method is and why Evolutionism is SCIENCE FICTION? GOOD LUCK. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
Your own text demonstrates your ignorance and malevolent hatred of reality. I needn't do anything.
sakar181 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sakar181 Your comment was very anti-intellectual for it was a bare assertion fallacy i.e. your hearsay worthless opinion. Care to substantiate your claim and then I will thoroughtly substantiate that you hate science and do not have a clue what the scientific method is and why Evolutionism is SCIENCE FICTION? GOOD LUCK. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Certainly. Juby makes the claim that a centrifuge was necessary to accomplish the results of the research in question. The published paper itself makes it clear that it was merely ancillary. You are idiot, and if you persist in spamming this comment section you will be blocked. I hope I make myself abundantly clear. I have had enough of you, so STFU or get blocked...NOW!
WildwoodClaire1 3 weeks ago
@WildwoodClaire1
I hope you seee the humor in Juby's blatant lie which shows that he doesn't understand the term "selective pressure".
Selective pressure is a term that refers to "Factors fostering selection include limits on resources (nourishment, habitat space, mates) and the existence of threats (predators, disease, adverse weather). "
Juby claimed that these could be measured in "kilopascals"--like the "pressure" inside a bicycle tube>
A hahhahhahah!
odinata 3 weeks ago
@WildwoodClaire1 Is this your site to block me? The centrifuge was used, because it was needed to produce the result. “Merely ancillary" was not proven by the experiment; this is a bare assertion, a unsubstantiated hearsay until proven otherwise as the scientific method requires. Stop projecting pseudoscience/lies. The yeast was and is still yeast except that it was forced together like tiny bits of magnetic steel made into a bat magnet. This is why cell death broke up this unnatural arrangement
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
The centrifuge was used because centrifuges speed the settling of the yeast in the solution.
If you don't understand science, why are you running your religious mouth?
odinata 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
The yeast was centrifuged for ten seconds at a time.
Read the paper, and watch the timelapse film.
Centrifuges don't "force" yeast together, you blathering illiterate.
odinata 2 weeks ago
@sakar181 Histruthbeknown, has to be screwing with you. Nobody can be that unintelligent! I have a Mentally handicap student that can follow a long, with this subject just fine. That's why I think he is just trolling for attention. Ether that, or he really need's to pick up a basic biology book. :)
BandOfAtheist 3 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist
I have no doubt this guy could be genuine. Hence another failure of our educational system. :(
sakar181 3 weeks ago
@sakar181 I live up north, and you just do not find people like that here. At least I hope that I never run into someone like that. I would hate to find out that I have all this education for nothing. If I would have known that the world was going to step back a few thousand years, I would have picked another career. Like ditch digging, or brick laying, or better yet an executioner. Funny thing is, all have a scientific foundation around them, in a broad aspect.
BandOfAtheist 3 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist
Be glad you're not in the south.
Thats all I have to say.
sakar181 3 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist You are a thorough ignoramus; take me on so I can prove it. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
NO ONE CAN CONDUCT OR HAVE SCIENCE/KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS THAT ARE IMAGINED/PRESUMED, WHICH NEVER HAPPENED, OR HAPPEN, AND WHICH CAN'T HAPPEN IN DEFIANCE OF THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF SCIENCE. NOBODY SAW, TESTED, DOCUMENTED, OR CAN REPRODUCE POND SCUM TO HUMAN EVOLUTION? THIS IS ONLY IMAGINED/PRESUMED, SCIENCE FICTION, AND NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER COULD HAPPEN AS IT DEFIES THE LAWS OF SCIENCE.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Hey bro, or bitch! whatever you prefer. You need to get your ass checked out! That troll burrowed so deep in your anus, that it must be manipulating you mouth. because you talk a lot of shit for a eight year old little girl! Your momma should have beat your little ass with a science book, not the bible!
BandOfAtheist 2 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist
YOUR RESPONSE IS TYPICAL OF THE ANTI-INTELLECTUAL THAT RESORTS TO FALLACIOUS TACTICS I.E. RIDICULE, APPEAL TO EMOTION, HEARSAY, AD HOMINEM.
ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT SO-CALLED SCIENCE BOOKS ARE ACTUALLY FULL OF PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND DELIBERATE LIES? ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT SO-CALLED SCIENTISTS HAVE LIED; DO LIE AND WILL LIE AS WELL AS MAKE ERRORS? ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT SO-CALLED SCIENCE BOOKS MUST ALWAYS CHANGE WHEN MORE ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING COMES TO LIGHT?
YOU DO NOT KNOW MUCH!
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
Check out the video by paul chartley linked above.
sweatytoothmadman 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN The world would be a better place if your dad would have just pulled out and came on your moms face! Like anybody wants to debate a troll like you. Whats the point, you can't fix stupid!
BandOfAtheist 2 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist
You are at your wits end and must resort to rude, vulgar and anti-intellectual rants.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN What the hell do you think this is, Mr. Rogers house! It's the internet, and people like you do not deserve respect! I can say any god damn thing I want to you. What, you going to send your god after me, dumbass! You try to pollute other retards 'like yourself' minds, with anti- science BS. People like you are holding back real science, just because you are to ignorant to even try to look up the BS that you are claiming, does not mean that others are. Troll!!!!
BandOfAtheist 2 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist THE EVIL LYING ATHEIST WITH A REPROBATE MIND. OF COURSE YOU WILL SAY WHAT YOU WANT WHICH HAPPENS TO BE ATHEISTIC LIES. YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS AND WHY POND SCUM TO YOU EVOLUTION CANNOT USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. LET ME TELL YOU. NOBODY SAW MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS COLLABORATING TO CONTRIVE LIFE OR TRANSMUTE IT INTO EVERY LIFE FORM THAT EVER LIVED. THIS IS ONLY IMAGINED/ SCIENCE FICTION. CREATIONIST CHRISTIANS FOUNDED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN All the BS, you keep repeating over and over, is so easy to look up, so why cant you do it? You are simply a very dense person. Now I know why you're so ass backwards! You're a creationist! Just because something in science can't be explained yet, does not mean that it won't be in the future. And when science figures out your pond scum BS, what creatard crap will you fall back on then? and again, and again, and again! PS. You are still a troll!
BandOfAtheist 2 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist Science is just a word; to get it powers is to commit the Reification Fallacy. It is fallible limited humans that try to understand how God's creation works using the scientific method which is empirical and based on the direct observation of testable repeatable phenomenon. Therefore, Evil Evolutionism is not a bona fide scientific theory; it is only science fiction, atheistic fairy tales. Wishful Thinking is also fallacious and unscientific to uphold a fairy tale without logic.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Okay, you do know that they make pills for mentally unstable people like you?, And straitjackets, shock therapy, padded rooms, etc. After all the comments you received from the other 800 people that prove you are wrong, you still think that you know everything. You don't have very many friends, do you? If any at all! Until you can prove that there is a god, you are just another crazy person that talks to yourself! I bet that your teachers were proud of you! lol! ;)
BandOfAtheist 2 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist don't waste to much time on the boozo. He really is either a moron who thinks typing in caps makes him look smart, or is a troll that really has nothing better to do then troll on one video every single day.
I tried to interact with this user and all that happened was, he ignored every point I brought up, claimed I did fallcies without backing up how I did them, typed in caps and went on and on about shit that was never brought up. He's a loon.
Krensharpaw 2 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist LOVER OF FALLACIOUS LOGIC THAT OF COURSE IS ANTI-INTELLECTUAL. IT IS ALSO FALLACIOUS TO USE THE ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM FALLACY AS IF SCIENCE IS BASED ON MAJORITY OPINION, A DEMOCRATIC VOTE, PUBLIC OPINION ETC. THIS IS TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC. IF YOU CANNOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE, REPEATEDLY TEST A REPEATING PHENOMENON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD CANNOT BE USED. THIS IS WHY EVIL EVOLUTIONISM IS PURE ATHEISTIC SCIENCE FICTION.
ONLY A SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE/BEING CAN CONTRIVE WHAT HUMANS CANNOT COPY
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. I have a masters of history, and teach 8th grade history, and you're going to call me anti-intellectual?
BandOfAtheist 2 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist It is laughable that with all your alleged education that you would act so uncivilized and so anti-intellectual by resorting to fallacious tactic after fallacious logic over and ove again. You are more so anti-intellecual for not being able to freely think and critique evil evolutionism to conclude it is unscientific atheistic fairy tale just-so-story telling without logic and evidence. WHY IS YOUR EDUCATION INSUFFICIENT TO REALIZE THAT EVOLUTIONISM IS A COSMIC LIE?
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist It's like listening to a child's temper tantrum.
lethalsub 1 week ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Alternately, self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals. You are what we call a self-described intellectual. You just think you're intelligent, when in REALITY, you're a nonsensical, unintelligent, preposterous, unreasonable, ludicrous, simple-minded, irrational, meaningless, mentally incompetent, harebrained, platitudinous, plebeian, unsophisticated, feeble-minded simpleton! ;)
BandOfAtheist 2 weeks ago
@BandOfAtheist
YOU CONTINUALLY CONFIRM YOUR ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM. YOU RESORTED TO FALLACIOUS TACTICS AGAIN. EDUCATE YOURSELF ON WHY THESE TACTICS ARE FALLACIOUS AND ANTI-INTELLECTUAL: RIDICULE, APPEAL TO EMOTION, AD HOMINEM, STRAW MAN, APPEAL TO SPITE.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Are you unable to answer any questions that I've asked you? You just keep saying the same thing over and over. I think that you need to look up some more words in the dictionary, that you do not understand, and learn a few more. You're vocabulary is the same few words again and again. you should try to learn a few more, then maybe you would sound a little better then a parrot.
BandOfAtheist 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BandOfAtheist
WHAT QUESTION WAS NOT ANSWERED? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
YOU CONTINUALLY CONFIRM YOUR ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM. YOU RESORTED TO FALLACIOUS TACTICS AGAIN. EDUCATE YOURSELF ON WHY THESE TACTICS ARE FALLACIOUS AND ANTI-INTELLECTUAL: RIDICULE, APPEAL TO EMOTION, AD HOMINEM, STRAW MAN, APPEAL TO SPITE.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN What happened to all you caps lock? Did you break the key? Or did you realize that it makes you sound like an asshole?
BandOfAtheist 2 weeks ago
@sakar181 Sorry for mingling in your conversation, but I believe, in evolutionary terms, that our educational system is selecting for the weakest reasoning people, because only the latter can believe in evolutionary nonsense fairytales. Histruthbeknown is negatively selected, while you and your band seem to be positively selected, and that is worrisome...to have people never questioning what they are told and never being able to have a view. Congratulations, you belong to that group!
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
To accept creationist dogma is to be the indoctrinated cultist. Evolution has mountains of peer reviewed evidence backing it up, and creationism has exactly nada. You want to bitch and moan that 'evolutionists are indoctrinating school kids', then why not get off your ass, scientifically disprove evolution, and with the god damned Nobel?
No, you wont do that. Namely, because it's impossible. But you will continue to blather on about topics you have no clue about.
sakar181 3 weeks ago
@sakar181 @sakar181 I do not have to disprove evolution because it has been disproved. I do real scientific research in the neurosciences to cure Parkinson's and my creationist worldview does not impede my performance. Your statements about getting a Nobel and disproving evolution shows that you are far away from real science and that you have no clue about scientific research. Stop being a parrot and start thinking and criticizing. Be humble and hear other views, maybe they are right.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle You do research in neurosciences but you are a creationist and you claim that evolution has been disproved scientifically? What an incredible piece of bullshit. You really expect anyone besides other creationists to believe this whopper? You're probably some retard living in a basement with computer holding bookmarks to all the creationist websites - which is where you do your "research".
Comedy.
Ansonidak 3 weeks ago
@Ansonidak If this is what you think, I cannot change your mind, sorry!
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
Yes, me and the whole of the evolutionary biology scientific community are incorrect, and laboring under delusion.
Or, is it the minority creationists who are laboring under theocratic delusion, inspired by mideaster desert goat herders who were likely under the influence.
Yea....
sakar181 3 weeks ago
@sakar181 Science is not a democracy dear friend. Stop looking down on peoples ideas, maybe they can be right too or maybe they know something more than you do genius.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
Yea, it's not. It's a *meritocracy*, and those ideas which have no merit, IE creationism, are rightly ignored, along with all other asinine random thoughts. Computer engineers dont get to say 'evolutions wrong cause thermodynamics!' just as biologists dont go around claiming 'gravitational THEORY is wrong cause nucleotides dont bond in vermouth.'
If you want to have a say in biology, you become a BIOLOGIST, not a quantum theorist, and not a pastor/reverend/huckster.
sakar181 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
And I will look down on ALL moronic, un-evidenced, nondemonstrable, mythologically based claims until they can provide more than hallucinations, holy books and ad homs.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
sakar181 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sakar181 "Evolution has mountains of peer reviewed evidence backing it up" And so what? Have you ever hand you article being peer reviewed? Do you know the games that are played, that have nothing to do about science? For example, PNAS would accept any article on the basis of being forwarded by one of its members? Yes, no or little peer review. Has your publication ever been plagiarized by its reviewers? Science is business and you have to go along... Wake up, it is not the ideal world.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle Why don't you make your point by debating directly with me instead of stroking your ego with comments to those equally unscientific. OTHERWISE, SHUT UP IF YOU CANNOT PUT UP.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN You surely are too agressive in your reply, it shouldn't be so my friend. From scanning your comments, I thought you were on my side. I tried to defend your arguments against evolution...???
goongoogle 2 weeks ago
@goongoogle I am very clearly against evil evolutionism because it is nothing more than atheistic fairy tale lies devoid of logic and evidence i.e. atheistic science fiction. You used my YT name in what I interpreted was the ridicule fallacy. Based on your response I may have misunderstood you. I applogize for that.
You must be very clear and strong with the reprobate mind of the atheist i.e. strong love is all they understand. I expose the lies and the liars they blindly believe.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN I'd like you to explain how evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, because I entertain a strong suspicion that you have not the least understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics whatsoever.
WildwoodClaire1 3 weeks ago
@WildwoodClaire1
Oh no... That guy again! HTBK is a lost cause as far as I'm concerned. Claire, save yourself the headache. I've spoke to him before and he believed that if stars were as far as they are believed to be, they should appear as 'lines' rather than 'dots' in the sky!
June28July 3 weeks ago
@June28July STOP LYING I DID NOT SAY THAT.
STARS CANNOT APPEAR AS POINTS OF LIGHT WHEN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM [THE SUN] IS TRAVELLING THROUGH SPACE ON ITS ORBIT AS IS THE STARS IN VIEW WITH A FIXED SPEED OF LIGHT OTHERWISE YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT A CLOUD OF LIGHT FROM EVERY SOURCE. DO THE MATH.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
Yes, you did. And now you're stating they should be clouds of light!
What math? YOU should be the one to do the math, not I. YOU should back up YOUR claims.
June28July 2 weeks ago
@June28July OKAY, PROVIDE THE QUOTE AND THE WHEN AND WHERE SO ALL CAN CHECK IT. WHETHER I USE A CLOUD OF LIGHT OR THE USE OF LINES OF LIGHT TO SHOW THAT THE STAR COULD NOT BE A VISIBLE POINT OF LIGHT EXPRESSES THE SAME ISSUE. I COULD USE BULLETS FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. IF A BULLET TAKES 2 YEARS TO ARRIVE AT YOUR EYE, IT CAN ONLY ARRIVE AT YOUR EYE IF THE SOURCE OF LIGHT AND YOUR EYE HAVE NOT MOVED OFF THE SAME LINE/TRAJECTORY. WITH A STAR & YOU/EARTH MOVING, THE BULLET CANNOT BE SEEN. HOW IS THAT?
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
These were done in PMs which have long been erased.
Stars emit light in all directions so a change in the Earth's position relative to said star would not render a star invisible.
June28July 2 weeks ago
@June28July How convenient that you cannot substantiate you hearsay fallacious comment. Why do you make a statement you cannot defend?
It is tautological that light radiates in all directions from the sun, stars ie light sources. This will be true of all such light sources which are moving as well, but since only a near source not moving much can only be seen as a point of light at the accepted speed of light, all other light will appear as a cloud of light without clear resolution of the source
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
I made a statement I cannot defend because there's really nothing to win or lose in this discussion. The only people who care are you and I.
I'd love for you to illustrate this argument in a video. We're going to need visual aids to settle this issue once and for all otherwise I don't see any progress becoming a reality.
June28July 2 weeks ago
@June28July I agree that descriptions are difficult to follow and that a video would be best. I will think on it and how to illustrate the issue.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
Thank you, please do.
June28July 2 weeks ago
@WildwoodClaire1 The SLoT applies to Open, Closed, Isolated, biological & chemical systems. If you are going to use the nonsensical claim that the earth is an Open System because it receives energy from the sun to pacify a blind belief in evil evolutionism, then I will expect you to Open your Mind to the Closed system of the Universe. The universe was wound up [by God] and it has been winding down [the curse] as does everything that is not sustained by intelligent intervention [only God could].
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN By the way, there is a button on the left side of your keyboard that reads "Caps Lock." You may wish to click it, because typing in all caps merely enhances one's perception that you are an utter nincompoop.
WildwoodClaire1 3 weeks ago
@WildwoodClaire1 YOUR/MY WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER IN SMALL OR CAPS LETTERS. YOU USED THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE A FALLACIOUS TACTIC I.E. THE RIDICULE FALLACY.
WHAT IS PROFOUND REMAINS PROFOUND REGARDLESS OF THE TEXT SIZE AS DOES FOOLISH GIBBERISH WHICH IS WHAT YOUR RESPONSE ULTIMATELY IS.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@WildwoodClaire1
You see Claire? This guy is a loon!
June28July 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6) MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE CANNOT COLLABORATE TO CONTRIVE LIFE OR TO TRANSMUTE IT INTO ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT EVER LIVED. THIS IS ONLY WHAT THE EVOLUTIONARY FAIRY TALE CLAIMS.
7) ALL THINGS EVOLUTIONARY ARE FALSE, NEVER OCCURRED, AND SCIENCE FICTION; THEREFORE, THESE CAREERS ARE OXYMORONIC:
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY COSMOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY PALEOANTHROPOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST OF ANY SORT AND ITS PEER REVIEW PROCESS ETC.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3) ONE CANNOT HAVE SCIENCE/KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS THAT NEVER OCCURRED, WHICH DO NOT OCCUR AND WHICH CANNOT OCCUR IN DEFIANCE OF ALL THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF SCIENCE. POND SCUM TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS ONLY IMAGINED/PRESUMED.
4) EVOLUTIONISM IS THE RELIGION AND SCIENCE FICTION OF THE ATHEISTIC WHO HATE THE TRUTH/REAL SCIENCE.
5) THE DANGER OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE EXISTS WHENEVER AN IDEOLOGY I.E. PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM IS TRYING TO RULE OVER EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like to couch things in terms that are simple and catchy to make a simple truth that everyone can pass on.
1) "EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE FOSSILS" THEREFORE EVOLUTIONISTS CANNOT HIJACK FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.
2) "UNIFORMITARIAN GEOLOGY DOES NOT MAKE FOSSILIFEROUS SEDIMENTARY LAYERS" THEREFORE THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN IS NOT A CHOROLOGY OF PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTION.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
Is this a troll? cause its funny.
sclf 3 weeks ago
Really? I don't want people to hear creationist stuff? I'm sorry, but I do want people to here creationist stuff, cause it's a perfect example of how to defeat strawmen. Really, that's all creationist do, they defeat a strawman of evolution.
Though I will have to say, nice graphics and all...kind of wasted on a such a thing (creationist stuff).
So, a good question that must be asked is, "why haven't you guys ever proven that your god is real?" Disproving evolution won't do it.
Krensharpaw 3 weeks ago
@Krensharpaw You don’t know what a straw man argument is or how it works. You used the bare assertion fallacy with your own comment which of course is anti-intellectual.
As for God, all his claims can be treated as testable predictions. Real science is catching up with what God claimed and confirming it to be true. Ex. the instruction/commands in DNA [God's speech/design] as well as the DNA chemical code can only come from a mind, and the mind must be superior to the human mind.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Rather funny since you don't seem to understand that creationst try to debunk a strawman version of atheism (a untrue one fyi). Rather funny how you claim I don't knowhow to use it, yet I do..funny.
It's rather funny how the people of the bible never knew about DNA or anything like that. Rather funny how creationst like you don't believe in evolution, yet your very beliefs have evolved. Funny again.
Want to go for a round 2?
Krensharpaw 3 weeks ago
@Krensharpaw You have not substantiated your claims again. You are just making hearsay statements. What atheistic straw man argument are you talking about?
DNA is a name humans give for the observation made about God's creation. The relevant point is that information/commands/instruction can only come from a superior mind to that of humans. Mindless and lifeless chemical elements cannot contrive a language code and semantic meaning. Humans with intelligent minds created computer code/programs.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Seems you lack the ability to read my comments. Do that and then get back to me and I might take you seriously.
Also, show that you understand evolution and form arguments that don't make you look like everyother creationist who is to lazy to read into so that they can argue against it proper like. Til then, I have no reason to contiue this little back and forth since you KO'ed yourself with your lack of knowledge on the subject at hand and what I was talking about.
Krensharpaw 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Krensharpaw I WILL TRANSLATE WHAT YOU SAID FOR ALL THE FOLKS ON YOUTUBE TO UNDERSTAND YOU: 1) YOU LIKE TO JUST MAKE CLAIMS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE BECAUSE I LOVE TO BE LAZY AND SOUND INTELLIGENT TO MYSELF.
2) YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOUR FAIRY TALE OF EVOLUTION CLAIMS AND WHY IT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE/SCIENCE FICTION THAT MUST BE IMAGINED AND BELIEVED WITHOUT LOGIC AND EVIDENCE BECAUSE YOU LIKE THE FAIRY TALE OF EVOLUTION BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO GOD OR OTHERS. FACEPALM!
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN also, just read my first comment, that should've been "a strawman version of evolution". But creationist also try to debate a strawman version of atheism as well. Shockofgod (who you seemed to be subbed to) is a fine example of that.
Just wanted to clear that up, so there would be no confsuion. Anyway, have a nice time studying up on evolution and then forming arguments against it.
Krensharpaw 3 weeks ago
@Krensharpaw You are an extremely ignorant person that just will not use common sense. Let me help you.
NOBODY CAN STUDY EVOLUTION FROM POND SCUM TO HUMANS.
THIS EVENT IS ONLY PRESUMED TO HAVE HAPPENED, BUT NOBODY SAW THESE EVENTS, DOCUMENTED THEM, TESTED THEM AND CAN REPRODUCE THEM AS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD REQUIRES.
THEREFORE, NOBODY CAN STUDY, OR HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EVENTS THAT NEVER HAPPENED, OR HAPPEN AND WHICH CANNOT HAPPEN IN DEFIANCE OF THE APPLICABLE LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OF SCIENCE.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN also, judging from this part in one of your comments (in caps locks of course, cause that makes you look smater :))
" EVOLUTION AS THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS IMPLIES"
The very fact that you seem to not understand that that law is dealing with a closed system tells me that you don't even know what you're talking about. This is why I can't take creationists like you seriously at all. You don't even know about the things you try to use to prove your belief.
Krensharpaw 3 weeks ago
Another delightful example of creationist fail. Congratulations, and thanks for the laugh.
WildwoodClaire1 3 weeks ago
@WildwoodClaire1 Your comment is anti-intellectual. You resorted to the ridicule and appeal to emotion fallacy. You did not substantiate your claim. Opinions are worlthless.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN How so? Ian isn't an "intellectual," he's an under-educated clown, and surely the proper response to a clown is laughter. Incidentally, unlike you and Ian, I actually read the paper in question and Ian's "anti-intellectual" ridicule completely misrepresents it. One can debate whether he did so from dishonesty or if he was simply incapable of understanding it.
WildwoodClaire1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildwoodClaire1
Ian Juby declared that the "selective pressure was measured in kilopascals"...
odinata 3 weeks ago
@WildwoodClaire1 YOU ARE NOT AN INTELLECTUAL FOR USING THE FALLACIOUS TACTICS OF RIDICULE & APPEAL TO EMOTION. WHY DIDN'T YOU MAKE YOUR CASE INSTEAD WITH SUBSTANCE; BECAUSE YOU CAN'T? YOU ARE A NEAR IGNORAMUS. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW, WHICH IS INFINITELY MORE THAN WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW, WHICH IS ACTUALLY MOSTLY WRONG. CAN YOU MAKE A FLEA OR A PEA FROM CHEMICAL ELEMENTS? NO YOU CAN'T AND NEITHER CAN ANYONE ELSE. YEAST CELLS FORCED TOGETHER IS UNNATURAL AND IS NOT MULTICELLULAR LIFE
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@WildwoodClaire1 EVIL BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONISM REQUIRES MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE TO MAGICALLY COLLABORATE WITHOUT BRAINS/MINDS AND WITHOUT BEING ALIVE TO FORM A SELF-REPLICATING SIMPLE SINGLE CELL. HOWEVER, A CELL HAS MANY PARTS THAT MUST BE MADE JUST-SO AND MUST EXIST AND BE FORMED IN AN INSTANT, BECAUSE THE LIVING CELL IS AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSITION. THE ODDS ARE ZERO TO FORM NATURALLY. CREATIONISM BELIEVES A SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE/BEING DUN-IT INSTEAD.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
This guy fancies himself as a comedian - and fails at it as much as he fails to be a scientist.
Boepyne 3 weeks ago
Sorry goongoogle, I thought you were Ian Juby at first. My intentions were towards him.
rclosser1 3 weeks ago
I don't doubt that you have a PhD...I can buy one online for 400 dollars and I don't doubt that you're doing research. What I do doubt is that your research peer reviewed science. I have access to virtually all of the peer reviewed scientific journals. If you're truly a PhD, I'd love to read some of your research articles, just give me the citation.
rclosser1 3 weeks ago
@rclosser1 ^^^your research IS peer ...
rclosser1 3 weeks ago
@rclosser1 I assure you my PhD, MSc and BSc are legitimate (University ranked 25th in the world), and I have 1 PubMed available peer-reviewed article (IF of 8.2 in Cell Death and Differentiation, 2007...) and 3 under review (PhD thesis). My subject of research is in the neurosciences and not in creation science. Should I stop having a worldview because I do scientific research? On the other hand, I do not like to give away my identity. Would you also post your real name?
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
"Should I stop having a worldview because I do scientific research?" If I may intervene in this discussion. How is "not believing in evolution" a worldview? Or do you mean being a creationist?
After all, evolution do explain the diversity of lifeforms based on observations and experimentation (so we could say based on reality) while creation...well.. let's say it has yet to provide a single argument in it's favour. So, how is "not-believing in evolution" is a worldview?
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas That is a false statement. Nobody saw or sees mindless and lifeless chemical elements collaborating to contrive a simple single self-replicating cell or its transmutation into all the life forms that ever lived. This is only imagined/presumed but was never directly observed, repeatedly tested, documented and it is not reproducible. Therefore, the claims of evolutionism are only fairy tales, and the claims of evolution cannot be scientifically tested as per the scientific method.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN yet again a creationist tlaking out of his ass. You can look on you-tube and see that it has been tested, observed and the like.
Yet, the thing you believe in such as noah's flood, life coming from dirt and a rib, etc. You didn't see either. Can't be tested.
So the later part of your comment goin on about fairy tales and being imagined/presumed, can be and should be applied to your own beliefs. Rahter odd how you missed that.
Krensharpaw 3 weeks ago
@Krensharpaw Let me show you how you are totally ignorant.
NOBODY SAW THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF ALL COME TO LIFE OR CHANGE INTO ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT EVER LIVED. WHERE CAN WE SEE THIS IN REAL LIFE NOT ON YOUTUBE?
IT CAN BE CHEMICALLY TESTED THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT HUMANS ARE MADE OF EXIST IN THE EARTH AND IN A HUMAN RIB WHICH GOD USED TO MAKE ADAM AND EVE.
WATCH THIS VIDEO FOR EVIDENCE OF THE ARK.
youtube . com/user/HISTRUTHBEKNOWN?feature=mhee#p/a/f/0/3PSZNYdfawQ
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
"Nobody saw or sees mindless and lifeless chemical elements collaborating to contrive a simple single self-replicating cell or its transmutation into all the life forms that ever lived. "
That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Don't you know the difference? Evolution explains the diversity of life when speciations occurs in populations via the process of natural selection.
Also, self replicating organic molecules were formed in Rebek's experiments.
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas Definition of a world view is:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
Concerning evolution, which is a theory developed to explain life’s origins and diversity, it violates all tenets of scientific method, among which the inability to observe and repeat major changes in life forms (speciation).
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
"Concerning evolution, which is a theory developed to explain life’s origins and diversity"
Sorry to correct you, but evolution only applies to the diversity of life, not it's origin.
"the inability to observe and repeat major changes in life forms (speciation)"
Except of course in experiments demonstrating unicellular to multicellular transition or, as in the Lenski's experiment, the passage from an E.Coli population to a brand new specie that cannot be called E.Coli.
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas Nobody can perform an experiment to directly test evolution at the macro level--we do not observe new species arising from old ones nor a living cell out of non-living (law of abiogenesis). One has to interpret observations according to his worldview. Therefore, an atheist worldview would tend to explain the diversity of life by omitting God (usually saying that there is enough time to allow it by natural means) and a creationist would tend to explain this diversity by God’s actions.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
"Nobody can perform an experiment to directly test evolution at the macro level"
Except, again, Richard Lenski's experiments, and please, do not use the excuse "it's still a bacteria" that so many creationists uses. With the numbers of species of bacterias existing, it would bring a shame to your scientific credential.
"a living cell out of non-living (law of abiogenesis)."
You do realize there are stages prior to the cell level? Simple self replicating organic molecules.
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
"One has to interpret observations according to his worldview."
To do so would be unscientific, sorry. You have to remain neutral. However, you are right that true neutrality is impossible.
"Thus, by saying that “evolution explains diversity of lifeforms based on observations and experimentation”, you are largely ignorant of the facts. "
Am I or are you deliberately ignoring facts because it conflicts with your mythology?
Why don't you try being neutral in science?
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it. While I am aware of all things that you are mentioning, believe me, I still tend to disregard evolutionary mechanisms as a cause for life's origins (yes , it is evolution) and its diversification.
"Why don't you try being neutral in science?" Hahaha..think about. You simply cannot be objective because you cannot dissociate yourself from your own reasoning. Since I came to believe that there must be a greater cause, I interpret
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goongoogle
"a cause for life's origins (yes , it is evolution)"
Actually, no. The origin of life on earth could be panspermia via meteorites, like it could be engineered by an intelligent life form or yes, by deities. Abiogenesis is mostly biochemistry and, in the case of successful autocatalyst self replicating molecule with heredity, a crude version of natural selection can occur.
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas things from that perspective. Whereas, somedy not believing in a greater cause, will interpret data/observations in light of this perspective. For example, although we observe evidence of a Big Bang, we interpret that the universe must have originated, but it could have been by a Creator (my perspective) or by no Creator (your perspective).
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
"I interpret"
That is the thing, do not interpret, only use the data, if there are unknown areas, then you can hypothesize about your deity's handiwork. Like Newton who could explain the movement of planets with gravity, but where he could not, there he imput a god.
The belief in a deity is irrelevant to what cause the big bang. It could have been a cosmic fart from a neighboring multiverse, hence the expansion gas formation (ok, I know it was silly).
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas Unbelievable, have you ever actually done scientific research? Do you have any respect for other people's views? "The belief in a deity is irrelevant to what cause the big bang." Then, what you are saying is that the disbelief in a deity is more relevant, right?
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
"Then, what you are saying is that the disbelief in a deity is more relevant, right?"
Nope, all I said was that a belief in deities (this include non-belief) is irrelevant to what cause the big bang. Sure, you attribute it to a deity. As in my example, an atheist might attribute it to a cosmic fart.
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas I have a biochemistry background and I am always amazed by the intelligence and complexity of biological systems. It is difficult for me to imagine that a cell can arise by natural means, as it is hard to imagine that a pentium computer can arise without its designer. If you think that a pentium computer is as complex as the simplest cell, reconsider your biology courses.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
"If you think that a pentium computer is as complex as the simplest cell, reconsider your biology courses."
Do note, however, that a pentium is not a self replicating organism and that, again, there is simpler forms of replicating organic molecules than cells (which is, after all, be several separate organisms (at least two considering the mitochondria) living in a symbiotic way. This is, again, linked with the mixotricha paradoxa example stated earlier).
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas What are you talking about, I was expecting a higher order conversation not a reiteration of your highschool biology courses..."simpler forms of replicating organic molecules" Just tell me one example of such self-replicating molecule that exists outside the cell or without the need of a cell. Nope, mitochondrion is not a valid answer.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goongoogle
"Just tell me one example of such self-replicating molecule that exists outside the cell or without the need of a cell."
Julius Rebek's autocatalyst experiment's result where the AATE catalysed itself, had heredity but no cells per say.
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas Both kinds of thinking resort to subjective means to conclude the one or the other and, frankly, you cannot do otherwise (impossible to be objective). Therefore, whether you like it or not, your worldview plays a major role in interpreting scientific data. If you are a real scientist, you should have realized it by now. Thus, by saying that “evolution explains diversity of lifeforms based on observations and experimentation”, you are largely ignorant of the facts.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas Current observations and experimentations rely on the fact that lifeforms change, but there is no-nil-zero evidence that they can complexify to the point of getting new forms and species. Nobody, even a creationist, would deny the scientific data suggesting change at the micro level, but one can interpret it according to his worldview. Trust me kiddo, start by reexamining the evidence about evolution and especially the objectivity and truthfulness of what you advance!
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
"there is no-nil-zero evidence that they can complexify to the point of getting new forms and species"
Actually, there is, from unicellular to multicellular (not only this yeast experiments), but also symbiotic relationships to the point of acting as a single cell (mixotricha paradoxa) and, of course, comparative ERVs. Again, you might want to have an actual neutral stance instead of ignoring the results of 150 years of research.
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas Wake up my friend, cell aggregation has been achieved before, it is nothing new. In fact, it is a very weak experiment that would not pass peer review process, unless it was published in PNAS. The only thing they prove is that yeast cells can aggregate and survive, point. It is a long stretch to maintain that a multicellular "organism" was generated, especially when no prior genetic change took place. And since they maintain that the newly acquired property was heritable, I doubt that
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@goongoogle
"In fact, it is a very weak experiment that would not pass peer review process, unless it was published in PNAS"
It is published in the PNAS .
"It is a long stretch to maintain that a multicellular "organism" was generated, especially when no prior genetic change took place"
Except that the multicellular yeast displayes division of labors and even apoptosis. If the cells were the same as the original unicellular, such observation wouldn't have been possible.
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas I quit, you do not get any of my points, you are way off. Thanks for sharing.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goongoogle
"you do not get any of my points"
Sure I do, to you it is too complex to form naturally, so your deity did it. It's just a classic "god of the gaps" argument (it is not an insult). Just remember that throughout history, the gaps filled with the ideas of deities has narrowed down with each new discoveries.
Have a good evening.
Atharkas 3 weeks ago
@Atharkas ...mutations were the cause of. At the cellular level, I suspect that the cells have formed homotypic interactions easily detroyed after magnesium and calcium depletion.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@rclosser1 Dear friend, I do not know your background or whether it is worth initiating a discussion with you here, but I simply gave you my scientific credentiels to make the point that there are real scientists who are able to do translational science to advance society (and to be creationists too at the same time). I know that I am a real scientist, not because I am an alumni of top-ranked institution, but because I am able to appropriately use logic in investigating the truth.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
hahaha Einstein was a pantheist at the most. But it's irrelevant who believed in what. My point is that creationists COULD be doing science but they are not. They are only worried about breaking down evolution. REAL scientists don't have the time to post videos on youtube with their beliefs, they are in labs doing research of important issues of our time. Creationism is a religion and not a science...that's why it's always considered unconstitutional to teach it to kids in school.
rclosser1 3 weeks ago
@rclosser1
How can you be sure that I, for example, am not a real scientist?????
In fact, it is funny, because I currently wear a lab coat and doing first hand scientific research (immunohistochemistry to be precise) in a legitimate institution, ranked 25th in the world for medical research. Yes, believe it or not, I, a creationist, have a PhD degree. I know many PhD's in my institution too that do not believe in evolution.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
I like this critique of evolution as I think all sciences should be critiqued. But why stop at evolution? Many theories in physics, chemistry, etc.. only have indirect evidence that support them. But if the creationists are right, though, then why aren't they the ones working on cures for cancers, diseases, and novel drugs? Creationism leads to no productive end. All scientific theories have gaps in them, but gaps alone will not disprove a theory. Gaps are just questions yet to be answered.
rclosser1 3 weeks ago
@rclosser1 So let me rephrase your statement as logically as I can: Creationists have theories--If theories advanced by creationists are right, but they are not--creationists cannot perform basic scientific reseach and translational reseach.--
Can you see any gaps in your logic?
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
@rclosser1 1-Theories can be advanced by anybody 2-Scientific theories have sets of rules, main rule is to avoid logical fallacy 4-Creationists and non-creationists are able to advance scientific theories if they are logical
So, it seems very illogical to conclude, on the basis of a false premiss (Newton, Einstein, Pasteur are creationists), that creationists cannot reason and cannot produce valid scientific theories and research.
goongoogle 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulchartley again, is this the correct source:
"Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition 1991, Harper Collins ISBN 0 00 470144-5"?
I can't find it anywhere online. The definition of magic in the online Oxford Dictionary is different for your source.
leviMichealathan 3 weeks ago
Keep up the good work to expose the lies and liars using pseudoscience/science fiction to promulgate the lie of Evolutionism.
I like to couch things in terms that are simple and catchy to make a simple truth that everyone can pass on.
1) "EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE FOSSILS" THEREFORE EVOLUTIONISTS CANNOT HIJACK FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.
2) "UNIFORMITARIAN GEOLOGY DOES NOT MAKE FOSSILIFEROUS SEDIMENTARY LAYERS" THEREFORE THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN IS NOT A CHOROLOGY OF PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTION.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN
Yoiu are the liar here.
odinata 3 weeks ago
@odinata
I like to couch things in terms that are simple and catchy to make a simple truth that everyone can pass on.
1) "EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE FOSSILS" THEREFORE EVOLUTIONISTS CANNOT HIJACK FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.
2) "UNIFORMITARIAN GEOLOGY DOES NOT MAKE FOSSILIFEROUS SEDIMENTARY LAYERS" THEREFORE THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN IS NOT A CHOROLOGY OF PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTION.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@odinata
3) ONE CANNOT HAVE SCIENCE/KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS THAT NEVER OCCURRED, WHICH DO NOT OCCUR AND WHICH CANNOT OCCUR IN DEFIANCE OF ALL THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF SCIENCE. POND SCUM TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS ONLY IMAGINED/PRESUMED.
4) EVOLUTIONISM IS THE RELIGION AND SCIENCE FICTION OF THE ATHEISTIC WHO HATE THE TRUTH/REAL SCIENCE.
5) THE DANGER OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE EXISTS WHENEVER AN IDEOLOGY I.E. PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM IS TRYING TO RULE OVER EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago
@odinata
6) MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE CANNOT COLLABORATE TO CONTRIVE LIFE OR TO TRANSMUTE IT INTO ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT EVER LIVED. THIS IS ONLY WHAT THE EVOLUTIONARY FAIRY TALE CLAIMS.
7) ALL THINGS EVOLUTIONARY ARE FALSE, NEVER OCCURRED, AND SCIENCE FICTION; THEREFORE, THESE CAREERS ARE OXYMORONIC:
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY COSMOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY PALEOANTHROPOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST OF ANY SORT AND ITS PEER REVIEW PROCESS ETC.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 3 weeks ago