This is a prime example of what always calls me back to Cristina's videos. As I listen to her, I find myself leaning forward as though I could have a chance to slip in my own excited words of encouragement. There's nothing quite like hearing common sense leave someone else's mouth for a change. Thumbin' it up.
Way to go religious dumbasses, spread the first book of the beginning of the best explanation of the way life has been proceeding for 3.5 billion years, not good for you, but great for science as more folks get to read about Darwin's ideas of 150 years ago, and evolution's humble beginnings
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
-Creationism is nothing more than reworked arguments, opinion based counters, quote mines and deception/distortion of facts.
..
-Evolution is forensically backed lab tested proven fact researched by actual personal first hand investigation and hypothesis screened by peer review process.
@themrgoku1988 "Creationism is nothing more than reworked arguments, opinion based counters, quote mines and ..." You are just the cut-n-paste king aren't you? First of all, I am NOT AGAINST evolution (I am a theistic evolutionist- look it up). You seem to be really confused about that. I agree with the notion of change, I do not agree that these changes are unguided and random. I have proven you wrong so many times that it is causing me extreme boredom.
I also gave you the facts about Macro and micro evolution and examples you CAN SEE SHOWING that both HAVE and CAN occurred. Your response slander OPINION based quotes based on augment from authority not tested fact backed by peer testing.
@themrgoku1988 Just to let you know, all data is subject to interpretation. That is what a peer-reviewed journal is. Michael Behe looks at the data, interprets the data, and forms his hypothesis. The whole process is bias. continued...
@themrgoku1988 Here is an example: We had Tyrone Hayes, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California, come and talk to us about the effects of altrazine (pesticide) on frog breeding and the diminishment of their population. He has published many articles, yes, peer reviewed lab experimented articles, on the issue of this chemical and it's effects. Now, there are new scientists, using the same data, who are authoring p/r articles with a totally different interpretation.
@themrgoku1988 "Present dates and sources for both." I did! "<-pwnd by me" Lol... you pwnd yourself. Do me a favor, get an education (a real college education), learn about the peer review process, take a spelling/ grammar class, develop your own ideas, and stop the cut-n-paste "I'm pretending to be a scientist" act. You are childish and I have already provided everything that you asked.
@themrgoku1988 "Peer review= having others picked at random test your work to see if they got the same conclusion so they can find out if you are full of shit" I am aware of this, that is why I already mentioned it. The problem is, there is both bias and incompetence involved in the process. In other words, it doesn't always do it's intended purpose. It is not a fact test like you claim.
@themrgoku1988 "Fact I,.D. is NOT peer tested.Your Sources?" Nothing but a persons work is "peer tested" (since you prefer to add the word test). Evolution is not peer tested; neither is Intelligent Design. The only thing that can even remotely test either theory is the scientific method, which still involves interpretation of data. "Your Sources?" "Pwdnd by me." I am embarrassed for you.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus , Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
@themrgoku1988 What is wrong with you man? lol... I am a theistic evolutionist! What are you trying to debate? You keep saying "<- I pwnd you". This shows your immaturity and makes you look foolish to intelligent people. I summarized our debate and have proven you wrong on many fronts. You keep changing your argument. I don't deny evolution. I just don't think it is random. What language should I translate this into so that you comprehend it?
@elshaddei43 Human chromosome 2, Matching endogenous retro-viral sequences between the grate apes and humans, recessive genes, tail muscle in humans, Progressive patterns in comparative genes, Junk DNA, Single strain DNA.+multiple dating methods that agree with each other with an extremely low % margin of error proving the earth is old enough for the time needed for macro change and Ring species nylon eating bacteria(example of new information created from a mutation). ____________________
Actually, your wrong, in the USA we are not allowed to pray or read the bible here, I actually know someone who got suspended for it. I believe that 51% of professors, im a psychology student who is in a biology class and anthropology class, and its very believable. The bible also said the world was round, not flat. Cosmology and Biology relate on a few subjects, I have also studied, ill give you the reference to my non secular science book.
@jo3jo3221 the bible it describes the world as a dome = flat earth, and it describes the earth as immovable, 1 chronicles 16:30, nowadays we know the earth rotates on it axis and orbits the sun. it is not illegal to read the bible nor illegal to pray we have freedom of and from religion, i dont know what you're talking about. biology and cosmology may relate but the point is creationists attack evolution by asking it to solve problems it was never meant to solve - the origin of the universe
@jo3jo3221 If a public school official suspended someone for reading the Bible or prayer (and the person doing it wasn't causing a disruption in the process) they are violating the free exercise clause and the school district should be sued...just as a school official leading prayer or Bible reading would violate the establishment clause
Try to understand the Constitution rather than playing victim
@antipyrene I know what the constitution says, I defended it in the military, and incase you didnt notice our country decides which of its own laws it wants to follow, and no we cannot display the 10 commandments anywhere, and yes the guideons can give bibles away in school, they just need to get permission.
« we are not allowed to pray or read the bible here »
Not during classes, no. You're not allowed to read a magazine or novella during classes either. You probably purchased text books on the subject matter of the various courses you attend: you may read *them* during classes. The rest you leave for between or after classes.
"If they don't agree with your work it will not be published." That's really not what peer review does. Essentially, the peers of your profession or area of research determine whether your research and conclusions are sound.
Also your conclusion shouldn't involve your bias. It should directly follow from the evidence in your paper. I read a peer reviewed article that said external prayer was effective in recovery, and the conclusion said nothing about God, because that's a non sequitur.
@scythian0528 "the peers of your profession or area of research determine whether your research and conclusions are sound" Then please enlighten me as to why so many unfactual, unsound, and incompetant journals are published. Especially when the publishers of many prestigious journals themselves admit the flaws and bias. I know what the intentions are in peer-review, however, my point was that you can't say that just because a journal articel is published, it is fact.
« why so many unfactual, unsound, and incompetant journals are published »
I agree there's been a bit of a wild growth in the department of small journals, usually with lower standards than the major scientific journals. This does tend to muddy the waters somewhat. Still, the "health check" of previous publications in light of new research is a continuing process, and usually the most affronting errors will be caught, eventually.
@scythian0528 "Also your conclusion shouldn't involve your bias. It should directly follow from the evidence in your paper. I read a peer reviewed article that said external prayer was effective in recovery, and the conclusion said nothing about God, because that's a non sequitur". That was my point exactly. It is not just religious articles that make that mistake. All fields of both physical and social sciences are guilty as well.
@scythian0528 I am not attempting to make a science-related point here. I am making the point that all data must be interpreted. Every person on this earth has a specific worldview which guides their interpretation. Consequently, the conclusion often lies at the mercy of the interpreter.
Also, the ten commandments can be displayed on government property when it is in cultural and historic context rather than religious context, which is what the ruling was about a specific Texas court. I can't remember which.
In other words, Kirk Cameron has a persecution complex, fighting against largely imaginary enemies, and evidently will not be happy until we are a theocracy.
@scythian0528 "Persecution Complex" It appears that atheists share this same complex. They feel as though they are being persecuted by religious symbols and texts. Atheists on youtube seem to be obsessed about the term "Theocracy", every video has at least a few people ranting about it. Perhaps atheists share a form of paranoid personality disorder.
@TheMrgoku1985 What is a "peer review test"? I have only heard of peer-reviewed journals. Which are not all fact by any standard, and many have been disproved. People always ask "where is the creationist peer-review journal?". The answer is: They (the publication/ faculty) will not allow creationist work to be published. That is why recently there is a creationist journal that now publishes such peer-reviewed work to be published without bias.
Peer review is just when others tests there work both micro and macro evolution has passed peer review testing(posted tested examples you discarded). Creationists refuse to let others test there work.
You are trying to argue your way out of having others test your creationism now.
@TheMrgoku1985 Once again... What are you talking about? Do you know my views for one? Secondly, peer-review is not a test! It is when other professionals or experts (peer) proof read (review) a scholarly article. Even the most prominent scientists will tell you the process is flawed. Just "google peer-review bias" and you will have your answer. Anyway, some of the greatest scientists ever were Christians.
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NASA.
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NASA.
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NASA.
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NSA.
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NSA.
@TheMrgoku1985 "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print"- International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Pub.
@TheMrgoku1985 "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong" -BMJ
You are still trying to argue your way out of having others TEST your creationism.
Every science goes thru this peer review process from surgeries, medicine and technology. An OPINION based quote does not change the fact you must have others in the field TEST your work. You want special treatment for your creationism and are trying to distract from the fact I posted TESTED evidence for macro evolution you CAN SEE.
@TheMrgoku1985 "You are still trying to argue your way out of having others TEST your creationism" No, I am showing you that your assertions that peer-reviewed work is fact is absolutely wrong. I feel I have proven that. "An OPINION based quote does not change the fact you must have others in the field TEST your work" I also provided you evidence of the peer-review processes failure by using the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NASA publishing controversy.
You are using somthing from an UNRELATED field to biolgy try "disprove" evolution. That continue to try to argue your way out of having others test your creationism.
@TheMrgoku1985 "You are using somthing from an UNRELATED field to biolgy try "disprove" evolution". I am not using anything from an unrelated field. You brought up the concept of peer-review providing some sort of factual evidence to support your claim. I have only proven that you can't use a flawed system to prove anything.
You have to bring your god the one from the bible into the lab to test your god and tested data for a separation of micro and macro change there is none only a single strand of DNA and 14 billion year old universe to work with giving no limits for macro change. Quit with the slander, opinions and distraction techniques and submit your creationism for peer review test.
@TheMrgoku1985 First of all , I am not a young- earth creationist. "Quit with the slander, opinions and distraction techniques and submit your creationism for peer review test" Not sure what you were referring to with this comment. I have proven the peer-review process (not test), to be flawed and extremely biased. There is no opinion here, it is known by all scientists to be this way. Creationism is a belief that God is the author and power behind creation.
@TheMrgoku1985 "only a single strand of DNA and 14 billion year old universe to work with giving no limits for macro change" I guess that is all you need, one "self-created" piece of DNA and millions of years. No guidance what-so-ever! Not only will everything be in the correct order for life but also providing self-replication through mitosis and meiosis. Given enough magical time, the world is what we have today. By the way, how long did that first cell live before it learned to divide?
@TheMrgoku1985 Here's one creationist journal article from your special "peer-review factoid test"- (Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
@elshaddei43 That's the most bizarre citation I have had to look at in a long time. What is "Microbiology." Is it a textbook? A journal? Can it be found on jstor or cinhal or illexpress? Who wrote it?
@scythian0528 "That's the most bizarre citation I have had to look at in a long time. What is "Microbiology." Is it a textbook? A journal?" Of course that was a journal. I wasn't making a formal citation, I was simply referring to a journal article (which I specified was in fact a peer-reviewed journal article). I gave the article title, journal name (yes, Microbiology journal), page #, etc... The authors- K. Kato, et al I can APA/MLA it for you if it would be less confusing.
@TheMrgoku1985 "You are trying to argue your way out of having others test your creationism now" lol... What am I trying to argue? You are having an argument with yourself. "Creationists refuse to let others test there work". First, there are creationist peer-reviewed work in secular journals. Second, now they can peer-review their own work in creationist journals.
@TheMrgoku1985 "(posted tested examples you discarded)". Actually, I have not discarded anything. You gave me some exaggerated snippets of data from the "atheist playbook". You yourself do not understand them, you are a cut-n-paste person. I read both secular and creationist journals and agree with some, while disagreeing with others. No insult intended, but your inability to spell basic words leads me to believe you are not doing your own research.
@elshaddei43 This is youtube not a term paper you just made an ad hominem attack and creationist journals are not peer reviewd you made an attack on this TESTED science but have no tested data for creationism. You are exposed as a lier now.
@TheMrgoku1985 This has nothing to do with a term paper. I did not request anything in APA or MLA format. I simply find it difficult to believe that you understand the things that you posted. I never said that I was right or that you were wrong because of your grammar and spelling, I only said that it was unlikely that you understand the laws of science and not that of basic grammar. So, it was not an ad hominem attack.
@TheMrgoku1985 "creationist journals are not peer reviewd" Answers Research Journal is one example of many creationist journals where you will find peer-reviewed creationist journals. They are in-fact peer-reviewed! Atheist evolutionists do not decifer what constitutes as peer-review.
@elshaddei43 "What is a "peer review test"? I have only heard of peer-reviewed journals." every publication in a peer review journal can be tested by scientist from all over the world , if there is any flaw in your theory or experiment, it goes through censorship and it's removed from the journal , that's called a " peer review test" . i thought you knew better mister ... scientist.
@MrTheblackmessenger "if there is any flaw in your theory or experiment, it goes through censorship and it's removed from the journal , that's called a " peer review test"" I would suggest that you research the peer-review process a bit before embarassing yourself in a public chat. If you read down through my posts regarding the peer-review process, you will see that it is riddled with bias, incompetance, and outright incorrect information. continued...
@elshaddei43 sir i have publish my work in a peer review journal so I'm well informed how it works,in the other hand you like the majority of creationists are just being dishonest.of course only a person ignorant could think that the process is without bias ,but it increases the credibility of a given publication.most of the knowledge we've gained in past 300 years has been through peer review and we've done pretty well with it. so why are you being dishonest ... Mr creationist?
@MrTheblackmessenger I would be interested in reading your work. Although I have not had any work published in journals, I have used many of them throughout the years for both college and leisure. "you like the majority of creationists are just being dishonest" Please explain the lies... Also, I believe in Theistic Evolution but consider myself to be a Creationist.
@MrTheblackmessenger "but it increases the credibility of a given publication.most of the ..." I have no problem with peer-reviewed journals. I was responding to the last guy who claimed they were fact. I will also say that there are many conflicting peer-reviewed journals that are published and just because someone touts a journal article as some sort of proof, doesn't mean it is true. More credible or reliable, yes, but the margin of error is high...Mr. Peer-review Articler.
I asked for a peer reviewed source on nylon eating bacteria he gave none. He also tried to argue his way out of having others test his creationism by arguing his way out of the peer reviewed process which is when others TEST your hypothesis to find out if you are full of shit or not. Creationism has NO peer reviewed papers. They refuse to submit shit for peer testing.
@themrgoku1988 " <- pwnd by me" Lol ...! I provided you with a peer reviewed source a week ago. I didn't see your request for a quote until just now because you replied to yourself. Anyway, here is the source: "A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation : Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2 ’, Microbiology (Reading) 141 (10) : 2585 – 2590, 1995. " continued ...
@themrgoku1988 There is no direct quote; if you read the article you will see. The nylon bacteria didn't adapt from frame shift, but from plasmids. Many bacteria have this ability and there is question whether the information already exists.
Still arguing your way out of having others tests your createionisim?
And you admitted to using quote mines as information
NSS and TO also still have the nylon eating bacteria with peer reviewed sources on there site they actively edit it as information is added or discarded 24/7.
@themrgoku1988 "Still arguing your way out of having others tests your createionisim?" Are you for real? lol... I just gave you a reference to an Intelligent Design peer reviewed journal. "NSS and TO also still have the nylon eating bacteria with peer reviewed sources on there site they actively edit it as information is added or discarded 24/7" That doesn't validate your point. "You got pwnd big time LOL!" I am beginning to think that you are delusional...
@themrgoku1988 "watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI" The author of the article that I provided is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry (with many peer reviewed articles). I guess you will just decide who is credible and who is not...
@themrgoku1988 "<-still trying to argue his way out of having others test his creationism(peer review)." Wow... I think I have already revealed to you several times that there is creationist peer review. I really find it difficult to believe that you are a college student, none the less, a future scientist.
@themrgoku1988 "Creationism has NO peer reviewed papers" Wrong again! I already provided you with this example but here it is again. Do you want more? "Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
@themrgoku1988 "peer reviewed process which is when others TEST your hypothesis to find out if you are full of shit or not." I have proven you wrong so many times about this by showing examples of bias, incompetance, and incorrect data published in the peer review process. For some reason, it is not registering in your brain. You haven't "pwnd" anyone, but instead have made a fool of yourself. You have only proven that your ignorance impedes your ability to learn.
@themrgoku1988 "You posted an OPINION based quote on the matter not a fact." You mean like your incorrect comments regarding the peer review process? Not to mention, your incorrect comments regarding the presence of creationist peer reviewed articles... The only thing evolving here is your weak argument.
@MrTheblackmessenger Nobody in the professional world (or anywhere else for that matter) calls it a peer-review test. If you would like to, that would be okay with me, however, there are no consistent measurable standards. Also, any "test" that would allow bias and differing contradicting conclusions to pass regularly would not be an effective tool. I hope this helps...Mr. Black Messenger.
@elshaddei43 "They feel as though they are being persecuted by religious symbols and texts. " On the internet. The 40+ I know in real life generally care less.
"Perhaps atheists share a form of paranoid personality disorder." I don't see it. I see a bunch of fear of Islam, which is hilarious, but that's not exclusive to atheism.
@archie977 "12. Before them (were many who) belied Messengers, the people of Nuh (Noah); and 'Ad; and Fir'aun (Pharaoh) the man of stakes (with which he used to punish the people),
13. And Thamud, and the people of Lout (Lot), and the dwellers of the wood; such were the confederates.
14. Not one of them but belied the Messengers, therefore My Torment was justified,"
you are 100% correct! i find most evangelical christians to be some of the most evil and dangerous people in the world. they won't be satisfied until america becomes a theocracy. their lies make me tired and their beliefs are horrifying. they actually hate the message of jesus (social justice, forgiveness, peace and love). they only claim to love him because the believe he has allowed them to enter heaven. that's it
evangelicals and the taliban are identical similar in their belief systems
@elshaddei43 i actually know a great deal about christian fundamentalist thought from listening to the hopelessly insane bob dutko and his radio program in detroit for hours each week. it's fun listening to this occasionally eloquent lunatic rant and rave about how noah was able to put dinosaurs on the ark or how ufos and aliens are really sent from satan and are demonic in nature. i get a kick out of listening to ultra-right-wing christian extremists and their stupid ideas.
@wangson "i actually know a great deal about christian fundamentalist thought from listening to the hopelessly insane bob dutko and his radio program in detroit for hours each week. it's fun listening to this occasionally eloquent lunatic rant and rave about how noah was" Did you have a point you were trying to make?
@wangson "i was merely responding to your suggestion that "(i) know very little on the matter." the point i was making is that you are wrong" I don't remember saying that to you. Anyway, what in the world does Bob Dutko have to do with it? I don't listen to him and quite truthfully, never have. If you are attempting to somehow link him or "right-wing Christian extremists" to me, you are quite confused indeed.
ela não e ateia, ela crer nas dividades do egito, na cruz ansata, olha no pescoço dela, essa cruz é usada para atrair prosperidade saúde fertilidade e outras coisas mais, só uma idióta pra acreditar nisso.
@TheMrgoku1985 The Declaration of Independence is in fact a legal document despite the ignorant claims that say otherwise. The Declaration of Independence is the theoretical groundwork for the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution. This is just another attempt to remove the Christian foundation from which this country was built upon.
@TheMrgoku1985 Please refrain from using ridiculous statements like "I guess the 9th commandment means nothing to you". It makes you look incapable of an intelligible discussion. Explain how you think I lied...
@TheMrgoku1985 "... in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. "..in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain...continued
@TheMrgoku1985 "...was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased". The DOI was also referenced by many presidents and court system to validify the extent of rights. If the DOC was not a legal document, then explain why the Supreme Court used it as a legal measure from which to base or rule law on?
@TheMrgoku1985 Oh really?... So the Supreme Court can just reference newspaper articles and books for the justification of implementing new federal law? I wasn't aware of that...
@TheMrgoku1985 By the way..."Article III protects liberty not only through its role in implementing the separation of powers, but also by specifying the defining characteristics of Article III judges. The colonists had been subjected to judicial abuses at the hand of the Crown, and the Framers knew the main reasons why: because the... continued.
@TheMrgoku1985 "...King of Great Britain “made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” The Declaration of Independence ¶ 11. The Framers undertook in Article III to protect citizens subject to the judicial power of the new Federal Government from a repeat of those abuses". -Stern Marshall/ Justice Roberts.
@TheMrgoku1985 Also, maybe you didn't fully read my post. I never said it was a law, I said it was a legal document. That is why you will only see it referenced by the Courts for law (as the Constitution is) not written as law.
Well in that case the churches have no right to force dogma on the laws than.
Evolution stays in schools becouse it is tested fact, birth control is legal, alcohol is legal, porn is legal,Abortion is privet matter between doctor and patent not law enforcement or tax payers and patent and not having to be brainwashed by religious nuts is legal. And all religion is privet practice not mandated law.
@TheMrgoku1985 First, the churches shouldn't be forcing anything on the laws, although our laws have origin in the 10 commandments. Evolution is NOT a fact, that is why it is a theory, it can not be tested empirically. What are you talking about with porn and birth control??? Abortion should not be legal because it is not a private matter. It concerns the life of someone outside the person. Religion is not mandating law. What in the world are you talking about???
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus,, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
@elshaddei43 Human chromosome 2, Matching endogenous retro-viral sequences between the grate apes and humans, recessive genes, tail muscle in humans, Progressive patterns in comparative genes, Junk DNA, Single strain DNA.+multiple dating methods that agree with each other with an extremely low % margin of error proving the earth is old enough for the time needed for macro change and Ring species nylon eating bacteria(example of new information created from a mutation).
@TheMrgoku1985 First of all, I am a theistic creationist. If you don't know, perhaps you should research it. Don't try this cut and paste manipulated data as some sort of "proof" of evolution. The worldview of the one investigating the evidence determines the direction of his conclusion. FYI- I have my degree's in the sciences, worked in the science field for 10 years. Please don't pretend to have some sort of information I don't have access to.
@elshaddei43 "Religion is not mandating law." The entire purpose of religion for the last 10000 years has been control. I have took a class on the morphology and history of religion, and I wish it were required.
Evolution has solid backing and there's a difference between scientific theory and general theory(conjecture). Every single IDer/Creationist that I have ever seen gets their ass handed to them on a platter when they try to 'debunk' evolution.
@scythian0528 Please re-read my post before commenting. I did not say that religion never mandated law, I was referring to the U.S. If you don't understand our legal and political processes, you may want to drop your morphology class and enroll in basic U.S. Government. I will say, however, that since the majority of America is Christian/Catholic, many laws reflecting their view will pass via the voting process.
@elshaddei43 I wasn't disagreeing with you. i was trying to point out that there's an element of social control whether or not religion is signed into law. That factor will always exist, and it's not exclusive to religion.
@scythian0528 "That factor will always exist, and it's not exclusive to religion" I agree. There are things like federal funding of entities such as Planned Parenthood that I object to because my tax money is paying for abortion (which I disagree with). There is an upside and a downside to a democratic (or rather republic) government. Either way, I have been to many different countries, and as much as I love some of them, I always want to kiss the ground when I return.
@scythian0528 Regarding your comment: "Every single IDer/Creationist that I have ever seen gets their ass handed to them on a platter when they try to 'debunk' evolution". They do a poor job of defending their beliefs because they simply regurgitate ridiculous arguments by subjects like Ken Hovind.
So then, what type of theory is the Theory of Relativity?
@elshaddei43 "what type of theory is the Theory of Relativity?" I don't know. Physicists frequently use supercomputers to test hypothesis, but the but presumably you can't observe it in a lab, in the same way that microevolution has been observed in labs.
@scythian0528 "what type of theory is the Theory of Relativity?" The reason I asked this is because for quite a long time this was accepted as being true. It was tested in laboratories using pulsars and other equipment. Recently, using the CERN project, the Theory of Relativity has been called into question. How can we bet our lives on the Theory of Evolution without allowing objectivity? I am not entirely against species evolving. I just don't believe, and find it improbable it was random.
@elshaddei43 "I am not entirely against species evolving. I just don't believe, and find it improbable it was random." but evolution is not a random process , i thought you knew better mister... scientist.
@MrTheblackmessenger "evolution is not a random process" Please tell me then by what guiding power does evolution progress. I am assuming you don't understand it much... Mr. Black Messenger.
@antipyrene "Evolution is not random, the guiding principle is natural selection" I have a very realistic understanding of evolution. The word "random" is frowned upon in certain evolutionist circles. They will say "it's natural selection, not random". The truth is, when DNA is replicated and particular genes lead to the survival of certain traits within a community, the gene expressions were completely random. continued...
@antipyrene Just because Natural Selection allowed the preservation of suitable gene expressions, does not make the process any less random. The word random can't be redefined due to a successful draw.
@elshaddei43 "Please tell me then by what guiding power does evolution progress. I am assuming you don't understand it much" evolution is driven by mutations genetic drift and natural selection, while the first appears random the other ones are not , and are crucial to the species survival and survival of new features or phenotypes. now do you see how ridicule it is to see randomness in it ... Mr scientist?
@TheMrgoku1985 It wasn't until after the Civil War that scholars and jurists no longer needed to reference the DOI, due to the introduction of the 14th Amendment. Previously, the DOI was used to validify equal rights to all men, hence the the phrase "all men were created equal".
Damn, I'm enjoying these videos. I would LOVE to see a live debate between her and Kirk Cameron. Seeing Cameron and his butt buddy Ray (Banana Boy) Comfort get owned never fails to entertain.
Oh, yes, because starting with no preconceptions and going where the evidence leads you is "stupid". Meanwhile, literally reading a bronze age fablebook written by ancient bigots is your idea of smart?
This is a prime example of what always calls me back to Cristina's videos. As I listen to her, I find myself leaning forward as though I could have a chance to slip in my own excited words of encouragement. There's nothing quite like hearing common sense leave someone else's mouth for a change. Thumbin' it up.
GummiMuffins 14 hours ago
Yaay free toilet paper!
ChainsOfJustice6 1 day ago
Way to go religious dumbasses, spread the first book of the beginning of the best explanation of the way life has been proceeding for 3.5 billion years, not good for you, but great for science as more folks get to read about Darwin's ideas of 150 years ago, and evolution's humble beginnings
nash984954 4 days ago in playlist More videos from ZOMGitsCriss
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
jityr2 5 days ago in playlist 015 creation/evolution debate
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
jityr2 5 days ago in playlist 015 creation/evolution debate
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
jityr2 5 days ago in playlist 015 creation/evolution debate
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
jityr2 5 days ago in playlist 015 creation/evolution debate
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
jityr2 5 days ago in playlist 015 creation/evolution debate
Tested
V
V
themrgoku1988 5 days ago
-Creationism is nothing more than reworked arguments, opinion based counters, quote mines and deception/distortion of facts.
..
-Evolution is forensically backed lab tested proven fact researched by actual personal first hand investigation and hypothesis screened by peer review process.
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
@themrgoku1988 "Creationism is nothing more than reworked arguments, opinion based counters, quote mines and ..." You are just the cut-n-paste king aren't you? First of all, I am NOT AGAINST evolution (I am a theistic evolutionist- look it up). You seem to be really confused about that. I agree with the notion of change, I do not agree that these changes are unguided and random. I have proven you wrong so many times that it is causing me extreme boredom.
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@elshaddei43
They are we SEE this in a lab.
SHOW us how they are not.
I also gave you the facts about Macro and micro evolution and examples you CAN SEE SHOWING that both HAVE and CAN occurred. Your response slander OPINION based quotes based on augment from authority not tested fact backed by peer testing.
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
@themrgoku1988 Just to let you know, all data is subject to interpretation. That is what a peer-reviewed journal is. Michael Behe looks at the data, interprets the data, and forms his hypothesis. The whole process is bias. continued...
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@elshaddei43
OPINION vs FACTS.
You are still trying to argue your way out of others testing your bullshit.
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
@themrgoku1988 Here is an example: We had Tyrone Hayes, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California, come and talk to us about the effects of altrazine (pesticide) on frog breeding and the diminishment of their population. He has published many articles, yes, peer reviewed lab experimented articles, on the issue of this chemical and it's effects. Now, there are new scientists, using the same data, who are authoring p/r articles with a totally different interpretation.
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@elshaddei43
Dragging shit off topic now you are using detraction methods.
Present your createionisim for peer testing.
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
@elshaddei43 <-pwnd by me
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
@elshaddei43
Present dates and sources for both.
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themrgoku1988 "Present dates and sources for both." I did! "<-pwnd by me" Lol... you pwnd yourself. Do me a favor, get an education (a real college education), learn about the peer review process, take a spelling/ grammar class, develop your own ideas, and stop the cut-n-paste "I'm pretending to be a scientist" act. You are childish and I have already provided everything that you asked.
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@themrgoku1988 Summary of Debate:
(1) Claim- DOI not a legal document = Proven wrong with legal evidence
(2) Claim- Peer review test proves fact= Proven wrong with conflicting p/r data
(3) Claim- There are no creationist peer review= Proven wrong, provided Behe article
(4) Claim- Creationists won't put work under peer review= Proven wrong again with Behe
Who got "pwnd"? That's right, Mr. Goku!
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@elshaddei43
Peer review= having others picked at random test your work to see if they got the same conclusion so they can find out if you are full of shit.
Fact I,.D. is NOT peer tested.
Your Sources?
Pwdnd by me.
themrgoku1988 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themrgoku1988 "Peer review= having others picked at random test your work to see if they got the same conclusion so they can find out if you are full of shit" I am aware of this, that is why I already mentioned it. The problem is, there is both bias and incompetence involved in the process. In other words, it doesn't always do it's intended purpose. It is not a fact test like you claim.
elshaddei43 5 days ago
@themrgoku1988 "Fact I,.D. is NOT peer tested.Your Sources?" Nothing but a persons work is "peer tested" (since you prefer to add the word test). Evolution is not peer tested; neither is Intelligent Design. The only thing that can even remotely test either theory is the scientific method, which still involves interpretation of data. "Your Sources?" "Pwdnd by me." I am embarrassed for you.
elshaddei43 5 days ago
@elshaddei43
watch?v=S9am3mfaE6U
Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus , Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
themrgoku1988 5 days ago
@themrgoku1988 What is wrong with you man? lol... I am a theistic evolutionist! What are you trying to debate? You keep saying "<- I pwnd you". This shows your immaturity and makes you look foolish to intelligent people. I summarized our debate and have proven you wrong on many fronts. You keep changing your argument. I don't deny evolution. I just don't think it is random. What language should I translate this into so that you comprehend it?
elshaddei43 5 days ago
@elshaddei43
Macro evolution has been tested I providence for this.
themrgoku1988 5 days ago
@themrgoku1988 u block me i win :)
medusa1450 5 days ago
@medusa1450
Te amo hun!
xxxcrowwingsxxx 5 days ago
@medusa1450 <-my girl friend!
xxxcrowwingsxxx 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elshaddei43
Macro evolution has been tested I posted tested evidence for this.
themrgoku1988 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elshaddei43 "What language should I translate this into so that you comprehend it?"
One that you can make sense in.
jeffiek 5 days ago
themrgoku1988 5 days ago
@themrgoku1988 <- Still trying to understand the peer-review process...
elshaddei43 6 days ago
you are the shit !!!
bustabusts 6 days ago
Great job!!! I found this link from watching a Thunderf00t video.
dustinroby1 6 days ago
You are awesome, like always. :D
NecrosHun06 1 week ago
Your like a blond female L from death note.
Its awesome.
MrDeludedPenguin 1 week ago
Actually, your wrong, in the USA we are not allowed to pray or read the bible here, I actually know someone who got suspended for it. I believe that 51% of professors, im a psychology student who is in a biology class and anthropology class, and its very believable. The bible also said the world was round, not flat. Cosmology and Biology relate on a few subjects, I have also studied, ill give you the reference to my non secular science book.
jo3jo3221 2 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 the bible it describes the world as a dome = flat earth, and it describes the earth as immovable, 1 chronicles 16:30, nowadays we know the earth rotates on it axis and orbits the sun. it is not illegal to read the bible nor illegal to pray we have freedom of and from religion, i dont know what you're talking about. biology and cosmology may relate but the point is creationists attack evolution by asking it to solve problems it was never meant to solve - the origin of the universe
gat0rgirl13 2 weeks ago
@jo3jo3221 If a public school official suspended someone for reading the Bible or prayer (and the person doing it wasn't causing a disruption in the process) they are violating the free exercise clause and the school district should be sued...just as a school official leading prayer or Bible reading would violate the establishment clause
Try to understand the Constitution rather than playing victim
antipyrene 1 week ago
@antipyrene I know what the constitution says, I defended it in the military, and incase you didnt notice our country decides which of its own laws it wants to follow, and no we cannot display the 10 commandments anywhere, and yes the guideons can give bibles away in school, they just need to get permission.
jo3jo3221 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jo3jo3221
« no we cannot display the 10 commandments anywhere »
Yes, you may. But not on public buildings such as town halls or libraries.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jo3jo3221
« we are not allowed to pray or read the bible here »
Not during classes, no. You're not allowed to read a magazine or novella during classes either. You probably purchased text books on the subject matter of the various courses you attend: you may read *them* during classes. The rest you leave for between or after classes.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
I love enlightened people. Thanks!
justanotherbum007 2 weeks ago
youtube
cancerbotX 2 weeks ago
"If they don't agree with your work it will not be published." That's really not what peer review does. Essentially, the peers of your profession or area of research determine whether your research and conclusions are sound.
Also your conclusion shouldn't involve your bias. It should directly follow from the evidence in your paper. I read a peer reviewed article that said external prayer was effective in recovery, and the conclusion said nothing about God, because that's a non sequitur.
scythian0528 2 weeks ago
@scythian0528 "the peers of your profession or area of research determine whether your research and conclusions are sound" Then please enlighten me as to why so many unfactual, unsound, and incompetant journals are published. Especially when the publishers of many prestigious journals themselves admit the flaws and bias. I know what the intentions are in peer-review, however, my point was that you can't say that just because a journal articel is published, it is fact.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elshaddei43
Site what it says and the source says in context whole quote
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elshaddei43
« why so many unfactual, unsound, and incompetant journals are published »
I agree there's been a bit of a wild growth in the department of small journals, usually with lower standards than the major scientific journals. This does tend to muddy the waters somewhat. Still, the "health check" of previous publications in light of new research is a continuing process, and usually the most affronting errors will be caught, eventually.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scythian0528 "Also your conclusion shouldn't involve your bias. It should directly follow from the evidence in your paper. I read a peer reviewed article that said external prayer was effective in recovery, and the conclusion said nothing about God, because that's a non sequitur". That was my point exactly. It is not just religious articles that make that mistake. All fields of both physical and social sciences are guilty as well.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@scythian0528 I am not attempting to make a science-related point here. I am making the point that all data must be interpreted. Every person on this earth has a specific worldview which guides their interpretation. Consequently, the conclusion often lies at the mercy of the interpreter.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elshaddei43
« all data must be interpreted »
We call such interpretations: hypotheses. And the scientific method demands that hypotheses be testable.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
I...I think I love you...
Bigtech82 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Bigtech82 2 weeks ago
good video, enjoyed it =]
prophanity0 2 weeks ago
I really wish I could double like.... i'll just have to post them to facebook so others can hear this great lady!
gypsytraveling 3 weeks ago
Also, the ten commandments can be displayed on government property when it is in cultural and historic context rather than religious context, which is what the ruling was about a specific Texas court. I can't remember which.
In other words, Kirk Cameron has a persecution complex, fighting against largely imaginary enemies, and evidently will not be happy until we are a theocracy.
scythian0528 3 weeks ago
@scythian0528 "Persecution Complex" It appears that atheists share this same complex. They feel as though they are being persecuted by religious symbols and texts. Atheists on youtube seem to be obsessed about the term "Theocracy", every video has at least a few people ranting about it. Perhaps atheists share a form of paranoid personality disorder.
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
Tested data backed by peer review test.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 What is a "peer review test"? I have only heard of peer-reviewed journals. Which are not all fact by any standard, and many have been disproved. People always ask "where is the creationist peer-review journal?". The answer is: They (the publication/ faculty) will not allow creationist work to be published. That is why recently there is a creationist journal that now publishes such peer-reviewed work to be published without bias.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
Peer review is just when others tests there work both micro and macro evolution has passed peer review testing(posted tested examples you discarded). Creationists refuse to let others test there work.
You are trying to argue your way out of having others test your creationism now.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Once again... What are you talking about? Do you know my views for one? Secondly, peer-review is not a test! It is when other professionals or experts (peer) proof read (review) a scholarly article. Even the most prominent scientists will tell you the process is flawed. Just "google peer-review bias" and you will have your answer. Anyway, some of the greatest scientists ever were Christians.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NASA.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NASA.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NASA.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NSA.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMrgoku1985 "You lied about peer review process it is when others in the field TEST your work" Where did I lie? In the peer-review process, articles are screened by other experts in a similar field of specialty. Nothing is tested! They simply read it and approve it. If they don't agree with your work it will not be published. There are many problems with the peer-review system. Take for example the recent controversial publications of Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NSA.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print"- International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Pub.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong" -BMJ
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
You are still trying to argue your way out of having others TEST your creationism.
Every science goes thru this peer review process from surgeries, medicine and technology. An OPINION based quote does not change the fact you must have others in the field TEST your work. You want special treatment for your creationism and are trying to distract from the fact I posted TESTED evidence for macro evolution you CAN SEE.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 "You are still trying to argue your way out of having others TEST your creationism" No, I am showing you that your assertions that peer-reviewed work is fact is absolutely wrong. I feel I have proven that. "An OPINION based quote does not change the fact you must have others in the field TEST your work" I also provided you evidence of the peer-review processes failure by using the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NASA publishing controversy.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
You are using somthing from an UNRELATED field to biolgy try "disprove" evolution. That continue to try to argue your way out of having others test your creationism.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 "You are using somthing from an UNRELATED field to biolgy try "disprove" evolution". I am not using anything from an unrelated field. You brought up the concept of peer-review providing some sort of factual evidence to support your claim. I have only proven that you can't use a flawed system to prove anything.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Can you tell me how someone would prove creationism? Do I have to bring God into a laboratory and test His skills?
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
You have to bring your god the one from the bible into the lab to test your god and tested data for a separation of micro and macro change there is none only a single strand of DNA and 14 billion year old universe to work with giving no limits for macro change. Quit with the slander, opinions and distraction techniques and submit your creationism for peer review test.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 First of all , I am not a young- earth creationist. "Quit with the slander, opinions and distraction techniques and submit your creationism for peer review test" Not sure what you were referring to with this comment. I have proven the peer-review process (not test), to be flawed and extremely biased. There is no opinion here, it is known by all scientists to be this way. Creationism is a belief that God is the author and power behind creation.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMrgoku1985 "only a single strand of DNA and 14 billion year old universe to work with giving no limits for macro change" I guess that is all you need, one "self-created" piece of DNA and millions of years. No guidance what-so-ever! Not only will everything be in the correct order for life but also providing self-replication through mitosis and meiosis. Given enough magical time, the world is what we have today. By the way, how long did that first cell live before it learned to divide?
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Here's one creationist journal article from your special "peer-review factoid test"- (Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs
Also look up nylon eating bacteria.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Read this: A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2’, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):2585–2590, 1995.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
Let me guess is is that still bacteria bullshit of course it is it is just an example of new information caused by a mutation.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 No it's actually a secular peer-reviewed article that refutes the claims about nylon bacteria.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
Site the says in context whole quote
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985
Site what the source says in context whole quote
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43 That's the most bizarre citation I have had to look at in a long time. What is "Microbiology." Is it a textbook? A journal? Can it be found on jstor or cinhal or illexpress? Who wrote it?
scythian0528 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scythian0528 "That's the most bizarre citation I have had to look at in a long time. What is "Microbiology." Is it a textbook? A journal?" Of course that was a journal. I wasn't making a formal citation, I was simply referring to a journal article (which I specified was in fact a peer-reviewed journal article). I gave the article title, journal name (yes, Microbiology journal), page #, etc... The authors- K. Kato, et al I can APA/MLA it for you if it would be less confusing.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 "You are trying to argue your way out of having others test your creationism now" lol... What am I trying to argue? You are having an argument with yourself. "Creationists refuse to let others test there work". First, there are creationist peer-reviewed work in secular journals. Second, now they can peer-review their own work in creationist journals.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 "(posted tested examples you discarded)". Actually, I have not discarded anything. You gave me some exaggerated snippets of data from the "atheist playbook". You yourself do not understand them, you are a cut-n-paste person. I read both secular and creationist journals and agree with some, while disagreeing with others. No insult intended, but your inability to spell basic words leads me to believe you are not doing your own research.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43 This is youtube not a term paper you just made an ad hominem attack and creationist journals are not peer reviewd you made an attack on this TESTED science but have no tested data for creationism. You are exposed as a lier now.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 This has nothing to do with a term paper. I did not request anything in APA or MLA format. I simply find it difficult to believe that you understand the things that you posted. I never said that I was right or that you were wrong because of your grammar and spelling, I only said that it was unlikely that you understand the laws of science and not that of basic grammar. So, it was not an ad hominem attack.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMrgoku1985 "creationist journals are not peer reviewd" Answers Research Journal is one example of many creationist journals where you will find peer-reviewed creationist journals. They are in-fact peer-reviewed! Atheist evolutionists do not decifer what constitutes as peer-review.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43 "What is a "peer review test"? I have only heard of peer-reviewed journals." every publication in a peer review journal can be tested by scientist from all over the world , if there is any flaw in your theory or experiment, it goes through censorship and it's removed from the journal , that's called a " peer review test" . i thought you knew better mister ... scientist.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger "if there is any flaw in your theory or experiment, it goes through censorship and it's removed from the journal , that's called a " peer review test"" I would suggest that you research the peer-review process a bit before embarassing yourself in a public chat. If you read down through my posts regarding the peer-review process, you will see that it is riddled with bias, incompetance, and outright incorrect information. continued...
elshaddei43 1 week ago
@elshaddei43 sir i have publish my work in a peer review journal so I'm well informed how it works,in the other hand you like the majority of creationists are just being dishonest.of course only a person ignorant could think that the process is without bias ,but it increases the credibility of a given publication.most of the knowledge we've gained in past 300 years has been through peer review and we've done pretty well with it. so why are you being dishonest ... Mr creationist?
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger I would be interested in reading your work. Although I have not had any work published in journals, I have used many of them throughout the years for both college and leisure. "you like the majority of creationists are just being dishonest" Please explain the lies... Also, I believe in Theistic Evolution but consider myself to be a Creationist.
elshaddei43 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger "but it increases the credibility of a given publication.most of the ..." I have no problem with peer-reviewed journals. I was responding to the last guy who claimed they were fact. I will also say that there are many conflicting peer-reviewed journals that are published and just because someone touts a journal article as some sort of proof, doesn't mean it is true. More credible or reliable, yes, but the margin of error is high...Mr. Peer-review Articler.
elshaddei43 1 week ago
@elshaddei43 <-pwnd by me
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
@MrTheblackmessenger
I asked for a peer reviewed source on nylon eating bacteria he gave none. He also tried to argue his way out of having others test his creationism by arguing his way out of the peer reviewed process which is when others TEST your hypothesis to find out if you are full of shit or not. Creationism has NO peer reviewed papers. They refuse to submit shit for peer testing.
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themrgoku1988 " <- pwnd by me" Lol ...! I provided you with a peer reviewed source a week ago. I didn't see your request for a quote until just now because you replied to yourself. Anyway, here is the source: "A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation : Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2 ’, Microbiology (Reading) 141 (10) : 2585 – 2590, 1995. " continued ...
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@themrgoku1988 There is no direct quote; if you read the article you will see. The nylon bacteria didn't adapt from frame shift, but from plasmids. Many bacteria have this ability and there is question whether the information already exists.
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@elshaddei43
Still arguing your way out of having others tests your createionisim?
And you admitted to using quote mines as information
NSS and TO also still have the nylon eating bacteria with peer reviewed sources on there site they actively edit it as information is added or discarded 24/7.
You got pwnd big time LOL!
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themrgoku1988 "Still arguing your way out of having others tests your createionisim?" Are you for real? lol... I just gave you a reference to an Intelligent Design peer reviewed journal. "NSS and TO also still have the nylon eating bacteria with peer reviewed sources on there site they actively edit it as information is added or discarded 24/7" That doesn't validate your point. "You got pwnd big time LOL!" I am beginning to think that you are delusional...
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@themrgoku1988 "watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI" The author of the article that I provided is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry (with many peer reviewed articles). I guess you will just decide who is credible and who is not...
elshaddei43 6 days ago
Comment removed
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
@elshaddei43
He made an OPINION not a fact
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
@elshaddei43 <-still trying to argue his way out of having others test his creationism(peer review).
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themrgoku1988 "<-still trying to argue his way out of having others test his creationism(peer review)." Wow... I think I have already revealed to you several times that there is creationist peer review. I really find it difficult to believe that you are a college student, none the less, a future scientist.
elshaddei43 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themrgoku1988 "Creationism has NO peer reviewed papers" Wrong again! I already provided you with this example but here it is again. Do you want more? "Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@themrgoku1988 "peer reviewed process which is when others TEST your hypothesis to find out if you are full of shit or not." I have proven you wrong so many times about this by showing examples of bias, incompetance, and incorrect data published in the peer review process. For some reason, it is not registering in your brain. You haven't "pwnd" anyone, but instead have made a fool of yourself. You have only proven that your ignorance impedes your ability to learn.
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@elshaddei43
watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
@elshaddei43
You posted an OPINION based quote on the matter not a fact.
themrgoku1988 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themrgoku1988 "You posted an OPINION based quote on the matter not a fact." You mean like your incorrect comments regarding the peer review process? Not to mention, your incorrect comments regarding the presence of creationist peer reviewed articles... The only thing evolving here is your weak argument.
elshaddei43 6 days ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Nobody in the professional world (or anywhere else for that matter) calls it a peer-review test. If you would like to, that would be okay with me, however, there are no consistent measurable standards. Also, any "test" that would allow bias and differing contradicting conclusions to pass regularly would not be an effective tool. I hope this helps...Mr. Black Messenger.
elshaddei43 1 week ago
@elshaddei43 "They feel as though they are being persecuted by religious symbols and texts. " On the internet. The 40+ I know in real life generally care less.
"Perhaps atheists share a form of paranoid personality disorder." I don't see it. I see a bunch of fear of Islam, which is hilarious, but that's not exclusive to atheism.
scythian0528 2 weeks ago
ur accent is weirdly giving me a boner
HaloSparta 3 weeks ago
man created god
archie977 3 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@archie977 "12. Before them (were many who) belied Messengers, the people of Nuh (Noah); and 'Ad; and Fir'aun (Pharaoh) the man of stakes (with which he used to punish the people),
13. And Thamud, and the people of Lout (Lot), and the dwellers of the wood; such were the confederates.
14. Not one of them but belied the Messengers, therefore My Torment was justified,"
Al-Quran:38
emaan456 3 weeks ago
you are 100% correct! i find most evangelical christians to be some of the most evil and dangerous people in the world. they won't be satisfied until america becomes a theocracy. their lies make me tired and their beliefs are horrifying. they actually hate the message of jesus (social justice, forgiveness, peace and love). they only claim to love him because the believe he has allowed them to enter heaven. that's it
evangelicals and the taliban are identical similar in their belief systems
wangson 3 weeks ago 2
@wangson Perhaps you should speak for yourself... You obviously know very little on the matter.
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43 i actually know a great deal about christian fundamentalist thought from listening to the hopelessly insane bob dutko and his radio program in detroit for hours each week. it's fun listening to this occasionally eloquent lunatic rant and rave about how noah was able to put dinosaurs on the ark or how ufos and aliens are really sent from satan and are demonic in nature. i get a kick out of listening to ultra-right-wing christian extremists and their stupid ideas.
wangson 1 week ago
@wangson "i actually know a great deal about christian fundamentalist thought from listening to the hopelessly insane bob dutko and his radio program in detroit for hours each week. it's fun listening to this occasionally eloquent lunatic rant and rave about how noah was" Did you have a point you were trying to make?
elshaddei43 1 week ago
@elshaddei43 i was merely responding to your suggestion that "(i) know very little on the matter." the point i was making is that you are wrong.
wangson 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wangson "i was merely responding to your suggestion that "(i) know very little on the matter." the point i was making is that you are wrong" I don't remember saying that to you. Anyway, what in the world does Bob Dutko have to do with it? I don't listen to him and quite truthfully, never have. If you are attempting to somehow link him or "right-wing Christian extremists" to me, you are quite confused indeed.
elshaddei43 1 week ago
ela não e ateia, ela crer nas dividades do egito, na cruz ansata, olha no pescoço dela, essa cruz é usada para atrair prosperidade saúde fertilidade e outras coisas mais, só uma idióta pra acreditar nisso.
leao2092 3 weeks ago
Sexiest accent ever.
MikeyVman 3 weeks ago
Our constitution was written based on our God-given rights. Hence the saying, "endowed by our Creator".
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
The declaration of independence says that and it is not a legal document.
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 The Declaration of Independence is in fact a legal document despite the ignorant claims that say otherwise. The Declaration of Independence is the theoretical groundwork for the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution. This is just another attempt to remove the Christian foundation from which this country was built upon.
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
You just lied
I guess the 9th commandment means nothing to you.
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Please refrain from using ridiculous statements like "I guess the 9th commandment means nothing to you". It makes you look incapable of an intelligible discussion. Explain how you think I lied...
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
Prove your statement show me a source document backed my the U.S, legal systom showing the declaration of independence it a legal document.
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 "... in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. "..in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain...continued
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 "...was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased". The DOI was also referenced by many presidents and court system to validify the extent of rights. If the DOC was not a legal document, then explain why the Supreme Court used it as a legal measure from which to base or rule law on?
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
Reference not law try again. You are still pointing to constitutional law not the declaration of independence. References are not laws.
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Oh really?... So the Supreme Court can just reference newspaper articles and books for the justification of implementing new federal law? I wasn't aware of that...
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 By the way..."Article III protects liberty not only through its role in implementing the separation of powers, but also by specifying the defining characteristics of Article III judges. The colonists had been subjected to judicial abuses at the hand of the Crown, and the Framers knew the main reasons why: because the... continued.
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 "...King of Great Britain “made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” The Declaration of Independence ¶ 11. The Framers undertook in Article III to protect citizens subject to the judicial power of the new Federal Government from a repeat of those abuses". -Stern Marshall/ Justice Roberts.
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Also, maybe you didn't fully read my post. I never said it was a law, I said it was a legal document. That is why you will only see it referenced by the Courts for law (as the Constitution is) not written as law.
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43
Well in that case the churches have no right to force dogma on the laws than.
Evolution stays in schools becouse it is tested fact, birth control is legal, alcohol is legal, porn is legal,Abortion is privet matter between doctor and patent not law enforcement or tax payers and patent and not having to be brainwashed by religious nuts is legal. And all religion is privet practice not mandated law.
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 First, the churches shouldn't be forcing anything on the laws, although our laws have origin in the 10 commandments. Evolution is NOT a fact, that is why it is a theory, it can not be tested empirically. What are you talking about with porn and birth control??? Abortion should not be legal because it is not a private matter. It concerns the life of someone outside the person. Religion is not mandating law. What in the world are you talking about???
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elshaddei43 watch?v=S9am3mfaE6U
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus,, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 First of all, I am a theistic creationist. If you don't know, perhaps you should research it. Don't try this cut and paste manipulated data as some sort of "proof" of evolution. The worldview of the one investigating the evidence determines the direction of his conclusion. FYI- I have my degree's in the sciences, worked in the science field for 10 years. Please don't pretend to have some sort of information I don't have access to.
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elshaddei43 Theory as in theory of gravaty, atomic theory etc
and only 3 commandments are law and yes the right to privet body autonomy
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43 "Religion is not mandating law." The entire purpose of religion for the last 10000 years has been control. I have took a class on the morphology and history of religion, and I wish it were required.
Evolution has solid backing and there's a difference between scientific theory and general theory(conjecture). Every single IDer/Creationist that I have ever seen gets their ass handed to them on a platter when they try to 'debunk' evolution.
scythian0528 3 weeks ago
@scythian0528 Please re-read my post before commenting. I did not say that religion never mandated law, I was referring to the U.S. If you don't understand our legal and political processes, you may want to drop your morphology class and enroll in basic U.S. Government. I will say, however, that since the majority of America is Christian/Catholic, many laws reflecting their view will pass via the voting process.
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43 I wasn't disagreeing with you. i was trying to point out that there's an element of social control whether or not religion is signed into law. That factor will always exist, and it's not exclusive to religion.
scythian0528 2 weeks ago
@scythian0528 "That factor will always exist, and it's not exclusive to religion" I agree. There are things like federal funding of entities such as Planned Parenthood that I object to because my tax money is paying for abortion (which I disagree with). There is an upside and a downside to a democratic (or rather republic) government. Either way, I have been to many different countries, and as much as I love some of them, I always want to kiss the ground when I return.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@scythian0528 Regarding your comment: "Every single IDer/Creationist that I have ever seen gets their ass handed to them on a platter when they try to 'debunk' evolution". They do a poor job of defending their beliefs because they simply regurgitate ridiculous arguments by subjects like Ken Hovind.
So then, what type of theory is the Theory of Relativity?
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
@elshaddei43 "what type of theory is the Theory of Relativity?" I don't know. Physicists frequently use supercomputers to test hypothesis, but the but presumably you can't observe it in a lab, in the same way that microevolution has been observed in labs.
scythian0528 2 weeks ago
@scythian0528 "what type of theory is the Theory of Relativity?" The reason I asked this is because for quite a long time this was accepted as being true. It was tested in laboratories using pulsars and other equipment. Recently, using the CERN project, the Theory of Relativity has been called into question. How can we bet our lives on the Theory of Evolution without allowing objectivity? I am not entirely against species evolving. I just don't believe, and find it improbable it was random.
elshaddei43 2 weeks ago
@elshaddei43 "I am not entirely against species evolving. I just don't believe, and find it improbable it was random." but evolution is not a random process , i thought you knew better mister... scientist.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger "evolution is not a random process" Please tell me then by what guiding power does evolution progress. I am assuming you don't understand it much... Mr. Black Messenger.
elshaddei43 1 week ago
@elshaddei43 Evolution is not random, the guiding principle is natural selection
Try to have a clue about what you are dismissing out of hand
antipyrene 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antipyrene "Evolution is not random, the guiding principle is natural selection" I have a very realistic understanding of evolution. The word "random" is frowned upon in certain evolutionist circles. They will say "it's natural selection, not random". The truth is, when DNA is replicated and particular genes lead to the survival of certain traits within a community, the gene expressions were completely random. continued...
elshaddei43 1 week ago
@antipyrene Just because Natural Selection allowed the preservation of suitable gene expressions, does not make the process any less random. The word random can't be redefined due to a successful draw.
elshaddei43 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elshaddei43 "Please tell me then by what guiding power does evolution progress. I am assuming you don't understand it much" evolution is driven by mutations genetic drift and natural selection, while the first appears random the other ones are not , and are crucial to the species survival and survival of new features or phenotypes. now do you see how ridicule it is to see randomness in it ... Mr scientist?
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 It wasn't until after the Civil War that scholars and jurists no longer needed to reference the DOI, due to the introduction of the 14th Amendment. Previously, the DOI was used to validify equal rights to all men, hence the the phrase "all men were created equal".
elshaddei43 3 weeks ago
Damn, I'm enjoying these videos. I would LOVE to see a live debate between her and Kirk Cameron. Seeing Cameron and his butt buddy Ray (Banana Boy) Comfort get owned never fails to entertain.
88rat88 3 weeks ago
"Origin of Stupidity"? One good place to start lookng is a book called Origin of Species.
mrtadreamer 3 weeks ago
@mrtadreamer
Oh, yes, because starting with no preconceptions and going where the evidence leads you is "stupid". Meanwhile, literally reading a bronze age fablebook written by ancient bigots is your idea of smart?
Someone's been brainwashsed.
BlodhArget 3 weeks ago
@BlodhArget Yep.
mrtadreamer 3 weeks ago
ur a gr8 person, keep up the vids, i dont really like the accent but you are doing a awsome job!
Nr2reaper 3 weeks ago
Actually I think that thin paper that bibles are printed on might make more comfortable tp.
valkolakk 3 weeks ago