ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
THIS WASN'T A DINOSAUR! Microraptor was a bird (that's why it had fully-formed feathers!), but evolutionists classified it as a dinosaur to fit their theory. All of its traits were fully-formed and developed (not in a transitional state, i.e. part scales/part feathers). Species in a true transitional, partially-evolved, state wouldn't be fit for survival. Read the excellent Internet article, "Is New Fossil A Bird-Eating Dinosaur?" by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. Just type your topic of interest in the "search" box on the site!
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 If science points to god why are 93% of the national academy atheist? (that's in the US, it's even higher in the royal societies and elite science groups in more secular countries). It is possible that the universe was created (the truth is NOBODY knows) but how do you get from a creator to yahweh/jesus the all powerful (unless you have iron chariots or need to heal an amputee etc) author of the scientifically inaccurate and self-contradictory bible?
Well, what refreshingly new bullshit. Just kidding, old news. Oh and great work on the caps, now I'm convinced. The Big Bang created all of space and time, as you said, which would imply that time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Therefore the Big Bang had no cause, because cause and effect are governed by time. So unfortunately for you, the trail ends there. No need for any supernatural bullshit to explain the cause of something that was never caused.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
-Albert Einstein, - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Idiocy knows no bounds. Believing in "microevolution" and not "macroevolution" is like beliving in words and not sentences. A liver doesn't half evolve like some sort of retarded horror movie. An eye doesn't evolve in quarters. Each part just gets a little bit more complex as time goes on. An eye was once a patch of light sensitive cells, which just got curved (into a pinhole camera) and then secreted a transparent chemical which produced a lense.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
I won't even both with dogma. There is plenty of evidence. Go to a museum and look at it yourself. You ever wondered why ape babies are born with the ability to walk and ours are not? That's because we straigtened up from them. The women's pelvis only allowed a certain sized body and head through and we can see this in the fossil record.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mutations produce new information all the time. Explain the arrival of naturally arising nylon eating bateria. Bear in mind that nylon is synthetic and has been around for the last 80 years.
@Mogley52 The hypotheses about the origins of life are a different field called Abiogenesis. Cells do not evolve in halves. The only thing necesary for life is a self replicating molecule, like RNA. RNA can be three proteins long, not a difficult thing to do. The beginning of life most likely happened more than once in different places.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation. Also read my Internet article, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! According to a Newsweek article quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Any evidence to back this up? Or maybe the scientists who understand the field much better than you are right when they say that the rocks could have ONLY come from Mars?
There IS NO debate on whether or not the theory of evolution accounts for the diversity of life, the ones who disagree are always the ones who have little or no knowledge of the theory of evolution or the scientific method. Indoctrination, fear, and religious propaganda is the culprit behind our scientifically challenged population in America, and it just can't disappear soon enough.
To heretic idiot: Alex Jones's version of the "non-existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)" isn't even consistent with Loud Mockington's version.
@KarlPhys Actually, no, there isn't. Historically, it has just been convention which proven ideas scientists have called "laws" and which they call a "theory". "Koch's Postulates" weren't even called a "law" or a "theory". They were called "postulates", even though they were proven to the same degree of certainty as other laws and theories in the biological sciences were.
And of course a "theorem" in mathematics is proven with absolute certainty.
Evolution is a lie, supported by lies which are exaggerated and presented as "proofs" and "facts". I am not an advanced ape. I am a man created in God's image and this life is a very special gift.
Creation is a lie, supported by lies which are exaggerated and presented as "proofs" and "facts". I am not a perfect being created in God's image. I am an advanced ape and this life is a very special gift.
Give me one good reason why I can't put your comment in vise versa.
@Shyn0h well, your statement creationism is false is true. It doesn't mean you weren't created in god image. You can have similar ancestors with apes and still be created by god. Theres really no problem there
@kingpharaohtsar sorry you weren't made like your parody pall the spagetti monster. Want me to call ya up and give you a slimy hug? I heard hes been slimin around by himself listenin ta Akon's mr lonely all day. Poor guy. Why wont ya be a chap and go over there. tell him how ya feel like scum, and listen ta how he feels like slime. Ya might have more in common than ya think......:)
@jamaicanification whats wrong with u spagetti monster wtf look i simply stated humans are scum im a naturalist so god is nature look what we do to the world we are scum an as nature gos we are the freak unnatural if ur man made god makes u feel better about being evil for the earth well ur ignorent
@kingpharaohtsar ??????? ya might wanna use at least some understandable grammar. I could barely make out what you wrote. But from i could discern you said 'nature is god'. So im assuming your not an atheist but a pantheists. And i dont think we're "unnatural" since we're part of nature that evolved billions of years ago
@jamaicanification no im no pantheist im a naturalist an ya humans are as unnatural as it gets we use religon to do unnatural things like homophobia sexism but sum things cant b blaimed on religon but are just as fucked up like how we treat the planet if u dont know we are scum learn what nature is o an grammar if u had an understanding of langauage u cud read words u see grammar changes langauage 2 langauge age 2 age etc but ever1 understands words cum to britian ull pick it up
@kingpharaohtsar i guesss????????? Its not right to say "humans are unnnatural". Humans are unique in that we are the only living beings that have complex civilizations, complex thought, complex forms of reasoning and rationalizations of why things work the way they work using religion, science and philosophy to explain these things. That doesn't mean that we're unnatural though.........
@jamaicanification its all about how unnatural we are an the way sum of u think we are better then nature witch cud b our undoing most of the great minds of time have been naturalists i see it as the only way we will survive natures coming change if we dont learn to understand nature it will kill us the mighty human is but a skin infection in earth nothing more 1 day maybe more but not if were all dead basicly do u think praying will stop the ice age no what worked b4 will work agian evolution
@kingpharaohtsar Having a better grasp of nature doesn't mean naturalism is the way to go. Just being responsible in how we handle the planet is how things should be done
@kingpharaohtsar i wasn't even arguing about god in that last comment, but if you want sure. I dont think that things are reduced to the natural, empirical sciences only because thats commiting the error of Scientism. The Universe is contingent. So it can run without anything outside making it run. But i believe god is the Prime Mover that set things in motion
@kingpharaohtsar a naturalistic god the i guess wud b the big bang this video doz a good job explaning why the abarhamic fath followers sud keep there fath to them selves otherwise alot more people will die coz of silly fath i believe in alot of od things like i think jesus was likely an fate but the god of the 1st testament is insane
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Popular Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Sexuality is not just for reproduction. There are reasons why the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Scripture teaches we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be spiritual joy as well as pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ANY REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of both transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
What if our intelligent designer was not a God? Would the concept of not teaching the possibility of being designed by an intelligence hold any lesser credence?
Your argument is more political than scientific.. If we are creatures of chance then we owe nothing to putting off self gratification for the betterment of our species.. However if we are creatures of intelligent design then we have an obligation in discovering the motive of our creator in order to transcend possible sadistic aniahlation if our creator is simply in it for say a grand theft auto like experience..
Hmm.. I thought science saw every possible option as a possibility.. So the idea of intelligent design is off the table simply because the table may have been designed by a religious fanatic?
Science is objective.. We have plenty of teachings in classrooms supporting accidental and incidental origins.. I would feel like a fool if I didn't take in to question the idea that planning and conspiracy was intrinsic to my existence.. What if intelligent design was not of someones God.. What if we are simply existing as an end game for some entity's entertainment?
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Imagine a fish with part fins, part feet with fins evolving into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
I'm really disappointed that NCSE has gotten involved in the climate change mess. Global warming just isn't the same as evolution. Try as hard as they may.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on by Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. WE NEED IT NOW. The source is deuterium from the World’s Oceans – virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce."..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" See blog "the Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post website “Star Scientific Limited”
Youtube video – “In the Footsteps of Fusion” + youtube channel
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
Ok, you win, if you continue to make statements without supplying evidence for it you lose this debate. Where do you get your numbers? Fox News Network? You have yet to validate one statement you have made and have in fact contradicted yourself. How do you expect my or anyone to take you serious? Good bye my confused friend. May you come to see through the blindness caused by your biases.....
@clgrayson1 "You have yet to validate one statement you have made"
I told you, it's not my responsibility to educate you, and quite frankly I don't care if you choose to reject reality. Also, can't post url's in YT comments.
"and have in fact contradicted yourself."
Purely as a result of your failure to make sense.
"How do you expect my or anyone to take you serious?"
I don't care if you take me seriously, you're obviously driven by your denial. Like I said, search and educate YOURSELF.
I am a biologist I have a degree and masters in all 3 main scientific studies ( physics , chemistry and biology ) and in all of that time I have found out that creationists are a bunch of codswallop who are too stupid to understand science
@walrusmcwalrus a degree and masters? Is that a masters degree in all three of those areas? How long does that take? What schools did you attend? and before you start throwing how smart you are, I really am not a stupid person. I have read a ton of books from both sides and when I removed my biases from the picture i came to an amazing conclusion. To call the accredited scientists that disagree with your biases is somewhat stupid the a scientific point of view.....
Not a problem. I follow a theistic worldview and so I base my values on that worldview. You know, why am I explaining this to someone who is supposed to be educated. Did you ever answer me why the fossil shows things appearing abruptly? Please answer that question and I will answer yours?
Ok are we talking micro or macro? perhaps you could answer me how things show up in the fossil record fully formed. I have never really gotten a good answer for that question so I ask as many people as I can hoping for are revelation?
@TrevorBlack79" Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science". Do you have evidence to back up your statement that fossils don't show up fully formed in the fossil record?
@clgrayson1 "Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science"
"Macro-evolution" is the exact same process as "micro-evolution." Changes that diverge one population into two or more distinct populations HAVE been observed in nature, numerous times.
"Do you have evidence to back up your statement that fossils don't show up fully formed in the fossil record?"
Every fossil is of a fully formed organism, so your inquiry is nonsense.
@TrevorBlack79 Once again, I cut and paste my answer out of a scientific journal although I didn't say that at the time. If you do even a cursory search about micro and macro evolution you will see your comment is non sense. and also you proved my point in your statement. My point is that every fossil appears as a fully formed fossil. so how does that support evolution from one species to another species? Please add links for me to check this science. This issue is very important me. thanks
@TrevorBlack79 by the way, two days ago you said that fossils don't show up fully formed and yet today you say, "Every fossil is of a fully formed organism, so your inquiry is nonsense." So I ask, what is non sense?
@clgrayson1 "by the way, two days ago you said that fossils don't show up fully formed and yet today you say, "Every fossil is of a fully formed organism, so your inquiry is nonsense." So I ask, what is non sense?"
My apologies for not initially understanding your question, but the burden of presenting an understandable inquiry is on the person making the inquiry. If I can't understand what you're asking, it's your responsibility to clarify yourself.
@clgrayson1 And I'm still not sure what you're asking. Evolution is an extremely gradual process, and each offspring is a "fully formed" organism that inherits the traits of its parents. Regarding the so-called difference between micro- and macro-evolution, organisms inherit tiny changes from their parents. Enough tiny changes add up to large changes. If you add enough inches together, you eventually get a mile, for a crude analogy.
@clgrayson1 All you have to do is google "proof of evolution" to receive the answers to your questions. The fact that you haven't found the answers is evidence enough that you've never looked. Evolution is the most well-supported scientific theory in human history, and you're clearly motivated by a denial mentality. You don't want your questions answered, you just want to push whatever (Most likely religious) agenda you prefer.
Virtually every single biologist, paleontologist, and geneticist says that evolution is a fact. Seriously, the consensus is overwhelmingly tipped in favor of the scientific model for evolution. Do you believe that 99.85% of these scientists are involved in the most elaborate conspiracy in human history, or that they're victims of the most severe misapprehension of fact in human history?
@clgrayson1 Since I can only guess as to what you meant, I'll lay it out simply. The fossil record shows a gradual transition spanning ~3.5b years. The first organisms were bacterial, and as time progresses organisms grow in complexity. There are no human fossils intermingled with dinosaur fossils, there are no land animals mixed in with the cambrian fossils. The fossil record alone is enough to prove evolution. Of course, we have a great deal more than that. Evolution is an established fact.
@kc0itf And just so you know, everyone follows some sort of religion. And anyway, I would just like people to act responsibly. We are really just a bunch of overgrown infants......
@clgrayson1 Really? I follow a religion? I don't believe in God and I certainly don't believe in global warming/climate change has proposed by prophet Al Gore...
According to NCSE, I'm already quite the heretic... not sure if I fall on the continuum they created!
@kc0itf Yes, you subscribe to some worldview where you derive your values from. Same as me and you would say I am religious. You can't use that logic against me if you aren't using it on yourself. But thanks for trying.....
@clgrayson1 "And just so you know, everyone follows some sort of religion."
I don't think so. The wold religion is clearly defined and there are plenty of individuals who don't spend their time believing in things.... therefore, they don't subscribe to a religious belief system. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, explain why.
@blaisingm First of all, what is this world religion you speak of? And second, do you know anything about world views at all? I will need to know since my answer will assume you do.
@clgrayson1 "First of all, what is this world religion you speak of?"
Sorry, it was a misspelling: The word 'religion' is clearly defined...
"do you know anything about world views at all?"
Sure, I'm familiar with world views.
So, I would argue that there are plenty of individuals who don't spend their time believing in things; and therefore, don't subscribe to a religious belief system. Am I right or wrong? Explain?
So, this is how "science" progresses... not by discussion, experimentation, and the gathering of evidence and facts, but by court ruling!
In other words, to win a scientific debate, have the judicial branch decide! Don't waste your time getting a degree and getting into debt, just put on a black robe!!!
I hate to point out this little matter, the theory of evolution is just that, A THEORY!!!! I fail to see how keeping an objective mind and allowing all the different thoughts in the discussion hurts. Thank GOD I am no longer protected like I was in school. It is a shame that we allow people like you to manipulate the teaching system in this country. It's no wonder we are not smarter than a fifth grader.
@clgrayson1 "the theory of evolution is just that, A THEORY!!!!"
Exactly! Just like the theory of gravity, germ theory, and heliocentric theory! Since theories explain facts, it's obvious that evolution is both an observed FACT (Populations of organisms change over time) and a scientific THEORY (Natural selection is the driving force of that observed change)!
@TrevorBlack79 Nice answer, I am with you up until your comment about consensus on global warming (which is true) consensus belongs with creationism, its science by popular thought and very far from the scientific method. While I don't think global warming is a hoax, I do agree with R Lindzen that it is greatly exaggerated. Its true that many projections (not predictions) have come to be true but a great many more have been in error. Part 1
@TrevorBlack79 When most skeptics spout on about the errors in the IPCC report (which I think have now been redeemed and removed). The scary issues are the things removed, the parts about Global warming killing the Amazon, the Himalayan Glaciers etc... Whats left is not very scary, but the AGW supporters say oh well the science is solid and robust, but all that means is a doubling of CO2 should cause 1c of warming which is just about a fact. Their is no consensus on the feedback systems. part 2
@TrevorBlack79 The only strength Consensus should be given is in a Democracy, even then it can still be very wrong (George Bush comes to mind). Science does not care what a majority thinks the truth is an immovable cornerstone.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein
@glennimmortal I don't disagree. However, until an experiment proves a scientific theory wrong, that theory is the best known model of reality. In regards to evolution, over 150 years of experimentation has upheld the theory, and it is the most well-supported theory in human history, trumping literally all other scientific models, regardless of their field. In regards to climate change, is gambling the habitability of our one and only planet worth ignoring the current scientific consensus?
Global warming is a complete scam, 31000 scientists in the US, 9000 of which have have doctorates completely disagree with global warming how it is taught today.
@Heretic157 "Global warming is a complete scam, 31000 scientists in the US, 9000 of which have have doctorates completely disagree with global warming how it is taught today."
Where are you getting your 31k figure, and how many of those "doctorates" are in climatology?
@Frosti2008 I took religious education. I recieved an A*. I don't consider myself ignorant and devote time every day to bettering my understanding of simply everything. Think for a second, how Harry Potter novels has more consistency, less contradiction and less warmongering inhumanity than the top two holy books. Like most religious followers, you were probably indoctrinated whilst still young. I don't pity you, I'm sure ignorance is bliss.
@Frosti2008 But it is a sky genie. It's an archaic story of a sky genie whose powers are attributed to causing, creating, saving or otherwise affecting all of the things which you don't understand. Fcking fail.
@Frosti2008 It's a damn archaic story of a magical sky genie, with powers such that all of the things you don't understand are, by default, attributed to his magic powers. Fcking fail.
werecow2003: the last talk, by Josh, is the only one focused on climate change. You might also check out this video: NCSE and climate change in the "recent interviews" playlist.
@Frosti2008: Sorry, but you have the wrong person; I don't think I have ever said such. But I'm still interested in your symbiont model. What exactly does god get from us that he needs to survive?
All good through the first two speakers. Then the third guy tries so damned hard to sell the computer modelling. Very disappointing. I was going to click like ealier. Glad I'd held off.
@Frosti2008: Symbiotic? In what way does your God require anything we can supply? He needs our prayers? He craves our companionship? Sorry, symbiotic implies roughly mutual met needs on both sides. What we have here is parasitism, even if he created the parasites. The rest is wishful thinking.
@Frosti2008 Well mine is based in reality. Your god is whatever you want it to be. You could eat little babies and say its fine because your god said so.
7:27 - wow, that is a blatant lie (the graphic btw). The bible has been rewritten so many times that it is rediculous (why else would we refer to it as the King James version).
People who don't understand the scientific method are never going to move past their fear and misunderstanding of evolution, which is a scientific study. Scientists don't go "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if all the life we see came from one source?! Hey let's just keep investigating things in such a way it suits our belief!!". If something isn't worth studying and is proven to be false, guess what: science makes that conclusion and moves on, it doesn't sit still try to prove false opinions!
@FatRakoon What you describe would require a level of intelligence I have yet to see in a creationist. That said, I salute your positive approach and wishful thinking.
@berner: No, it's perfectly possible to live with an ignorance of science, just as most people live in ignorance of how their car works. You just trust it will be there is you perform the required maintenance. What you need knowledge of science for is to work with it. As the man says, soon everyone will have their own GM chart. What will they do with it? Those that ignore it will wind up in the same bin as those who don't know anything about computers.
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS WASN'T A DINOSAUR! Microraptor was a bird (that's why it had fully-formed feathers!), but evolutionists classified it as a dinosaur to fit their theory. All of its traits were fully-formed and developed (not in a transitional state, i.e. part scales/part feathers). Species in a true transitional, partially-evolved, state wouldn't be fit for survival. Read the excellent Internet article, "Is New Fossil A Bird-Eating Dinosaur?" by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas.
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. Just type your topic of interest in the "search" box on the site!
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
chauncyhead 2 weeks ago
Sweet Mama Kent Mogley you need to stay the hell away from AIG.
hksin11186 4 weeks ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52 The usual "taken out of context" and "misinterpreted" rubbish.
TheMessiersAndromeda 4 weeks ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52 If science points to god why are 93% of the national academy atheist? (that's in the US, it's even higher in the royal societies and elite science groups in more secular countries). It is possible that the universe was created (the truth is NOBODY knows) but how do you get from a creator to yahweh/jesus the all powerful (unless you have iron chariots or need to heal an amputee etc) author of the scientifically inaccurate and self-contradictory bible?
1empathy 4 weeks ago
@Mogley52
Well, what refreshingly new bullshit. Just kidding, old news. Oh and great work on the caps, now I'm convinced. The Big Bang created all of space and time, as you said, which would imply that time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Therefore the Big Bang had no cause, because cause and effect are governed by time. So unfortunately for you, the trail ends there. No need for any supernatural bullshit to explain the cause of something that was never caused.
TheMessiersAndromeda 4 weeks ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
-Albert Einstein, - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
TheMessiersAndromeda 4 weeks ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52
Idiocy knows no bounds. Believing in "microevolution" and not "macroevolution" is like beliving in words and not sentences. A liver doesn't half evolve like some sort of retarded horror movie. An eye doesn't evolve in quarters. Each part just gets a little bit more complex as time goes on. An eye was once a patch of light sensitive cells, which just got curved (into a pinhole camera) and then secreted a transparent chemical which produced a lense.
TheMessiersAndromeda 4 weeks ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52
I won't even both with dogma. There is plenty of evidence. Go to a museum and look at it yourself. You ever wondered why ape babies are born with the ability to walk and ours are not? That's because we straigtened up from them. The women's pelvis only allowed a certain sized body and head through and we can see this in the fossil record.
TheMessiersAndromeda 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 month ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52
Mutations produce new information all the time. Explain the arrival of naturally arising nylon eating bateria. Bear in mind that nylon is synthetic and has been around for the last 80 years.
TheMessiersAndromeda 4 weeks ago
@Mogley52 The hypotheses about the origins of life are a different field called Abiogenesis. Cells do not evolve in halves. The only thing necesary for life is a self replicating molecule, like RNA. RNA can be three proteins long, not a difficult thing to do. The beginning of life most likely happened more than once in different places.
TheMessiersAndromeda 4 weeks ago
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation. Also read my Internet article, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! According to a Newsweek article quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52
Any evidence to back this up? Or maybe the scientists who understand the field much better than you are right when they say that the rocks could have ONLY come from Mars?
TheMessiersAndromeda 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
based on the battle between evolution and creation, check out our new sci fi movie EVOLUTION CREEK decide for yourself!
chauncyhead 1 month ago
There IS NO debate on whether or not the theory of evolution accounts for the diversity of life, the ones who disagree are always the ones who have little or no knowledge of the theory of evolution or the scientific method. Indoctrination, fear, and religious propaganda is the culprit behind our scientifically challenged population in America, and it just can't disappear soon enough.
DoneWithDogma 1 month ago
To heretic idiot: Alex Jones's version of the "non-existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)" isn't even consistent with Loud Mockington's version.
Why aren't you out protesting these idiots?
mphello 3 months ago
In mathematics, it only takes 1 person to do a proof, but it may take ten mathematicians to check it. e.g. Wiles' proof of FLT runs 200 pages.
So, peer-review IS a consensus-thing. But, it's a CONSENSUS OF THOSE WHO DO OR CHECK THE PROOF!
i.e. a CONSENSUS OF THOSE WHO DO THE HARD WORK! NOT just polling random subhuman creatards and unpatriotic AGW-denying morons.
Same thing with evidence for aliens-UFOs: a consensus of THOSE WHO HAVE HAD INDEPENDENT SIGHTINGS is what matters.
mphello 3 months ago
Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy
Law of Conservation of Momentum
Newton's Laws of Gravity
Law of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
Law of Evolution
Robert Koch's Law of Germ-Causation of Disease
Boom! Problem solved, if deniers are so fucked-up hung up on the word "theory". Call these LAWS, then, like we should.
Boom!
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello Scientifically there is a whole world of difference between a law and a theory.
KarlPhys 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KarlPhys Actually, no, there isn't. Historically, it has just been convention which proven ideas scientists have called "laws" and which they call a "theory". "Koch's Postulates" weren't even called a "law" or a "theory". They were called "postulates", even though they were proven to the same degree of certainty as other laws and theories in the biological sciences were.
And of course a "theorem" in mathematics is proven with absolute certainty.
We don't even call anything in math a "law".
mphello 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Holy! A Youtube video that's one-hour long?! I was hoping to have all of the information driven into my skull in four-minutes.
Weraisethenerdyflag 4 months ago
Comment removed
Weraisethenerdyflag 4 months ago
Evolution is a lie, supported by lies which are exaggerated and presented as "proofs" and "facts". I am not an advanced ape. I am a man created in God's image and this life is a very special gift.
Noremorse10 6 months ago
@Noremorse10
Creation is a lie, supported by lies which are exaggerated and presented as "proofs" and "facts". I am not a perfect being created in God's image. I am an advanced ape and this life is a very special gift.
Give me one good reason why I can't put your comment in vise versa.
Shyn0h 6 months ago
@Shyn0h well, your statement creationism is false is true. It doesn't mean you weren't created in god image. You can have similar ancestors with apes and still be created by god. Theres really no problem there
jamaicanification 5 months ago
@jamaicanification then ur gods an asshole coz we are scum
kingpharaohtsar 4 months ago
@kingpharaohtsar sorry you weren't made like your parody pall the spagetti monster. Want me to call ya up and give you a slimy hug? I heard hes been slimin around by himself listenin ta Akon's mr lonely all day. Poor guy. Why wont ya be a chap and go over there. tell him how ya feel like scum, and listen ta how he feels like slime. Ya might have more in common than ya think......:)
jamaicanification 4 months ago
@jamaicanification whats wrong with u spagetti monster wtf look i simply stated humans are scum im a naturalist so god is nature look what we do to the world we are scum an as nature gos we are the freak unnatural if ur man made god makes u feel better about being evil for the earth well ur ignorent
kingpharaohtsar 4 months ago
@kingpharaohtsar ??????? ya might wanna use at least some understandable grammar. I could barely make out what you wrote. But from i could discern you said 'nature is god'. So im assuming your not an atheist but a pantheists. And i dont think we're "unnatural" since we're part of nature that evolved billions of years ago
jamaicanification 4 months ago
@jamaicanification no im no pantheist im a naturalist an ya humans are as unnatural as it gets we use religon to do unnatural things like homophobia sexism but sum things cant b blaimed on religon but are just as fucked up like how we treat the planet if u dont know we are scum learn what nature is o an grammar if u had an understanding of langauage u cud read words u see grammar changes langauage 2 langauge age 2 age etc but ever1 understands words cum to britian ull pick it up
kingpharaohtsar 4 months ago
@kingpharaohtsar i guesss????????? Its not right to say "humans are unnnatural". Humans are unique in that we are the only living beings that have complex civilizations, complex thought, complex forms of reasoning and rationalizations of why things work the way they work using religion, science and philosophy to explain these things. That doesn't mean that we're unnatural though.........
jamaicanification 4 months ago
@jamaicanification its all about how unnatural we are an the way sum of u think we are better then nature witch cud b our undoing most of the great minds of time have been naturalists i see it as the only way we will survive natures coming change if we dont learn to understand nature it will kill us the mighty human is but a skin infection in earth nothing more 1 day maybe more but not if were all dead basicly do u think praying will stop the ice age no what worked b4 will work agian evolution
kingpharaohtsar 4 months ago
@kingpharaohtsar Having a better grasp of nature doesn't mean naturalism is the way to go. Just being responsible in how we handle the planet is how things should be done
jamaicanification 4 months ago
@jamaicanification um u may wona look up naturalism or are u thinking ur god is needed some how
kingpharaohtsar 4 months ago
@kingpharaohtsar i wasn't even arguing about god in that last comment, but if you want sure. I dont think that things are reduced to the natural, empirical sciences only because thats commiting the error of Scientism. The Universe is contingent. So it can run without anything outside making it run. But i believe god is the Prime Mover that set things in motion
jamaicanification 4 months ago
@kingpharaohtsar a naturalistic god the i guess wud b the big bang this video doz a good job explaning why the abarhamic fath followers sud keep there fath to them selves otherwise alot more people will die coz of silly fath i believe in alot of od things like i think jesus was likely an fate but the god of the 1st testament is insane
kingpharaohtsar 4 months ago
@Shyn0h BRAVO! Good work!
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello
It's been a while since I commented that, so I hope you saw what message I was replying to. But thanks anyways ;)
Shyn0h 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Popular Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Sexuality is not just for reproduction. There are reasons why the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Scripture teaches we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be spiritual joy as well as pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of both transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
What if our intelligent designer was not a God? Would the concept of not teaching the possibility of being designed by an intelligence hold any lesser credence?
ohzoneplayer 7 months ago
@ohzoneplayer No. But at the same time teachers arent telling us that we DEFINITLY cant be part of some alian construction.
THe reason we cant teach it as an alternative is because it has not been proven.
If we are going to teach everything that MIGHT be possible, students need to attend school 24/7.
gulbirk 6 months ago
Your argument is more political than scientific.. If we are creatures of chance then we owe nothing to putting off self gratification for the betterment of our species.. However if we are creatures of intelligent design then we have an obligation in discovering the motive of our creator in order to transcend possible sadistic aniahlation if our creator is simply in it for say a grand theft auto like experience..
ohzoneplayer 7 months ago
Hmm.. I thought science saw every possible option as a possibility.. So the idea of intelligent design is off the table simply because the table may have been designed by a religious fanatic?
ohzoneplayer 7 months ago
Science is objective.. We have plenty of teachings in classrooms supporting accidental and incidental origins.. I would feel like a fool if I didn't take in to question the idea that planning and conspiracy was intrinsic to my existence.. What if intelligent design was not of someones God.. What if we are simply existing as an end game for some entity's entertainment?
ohzoneplayer 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 7 months ago
Imagine a fish with part fins, part feet with fins evolving into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
I'm really disappointed that NCSE has gotten involved in the climate change mess. Global warming just isn't the same as evolution. Try as hard as they may.
M00nGlitz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on by Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. WE NEED IT NOW. The source is deuterium from the World’s Oceans – virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce."..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" See blog "the Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post website “Star Scientific Limited”
Youtube video – “In the Footsteps of Fusion” + youtube channel
2110kop 7 months ago
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
vechorik 7 months ago
CO2 MAKES UP .038% OF OUR ATMOSPHERE.
FOR MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY TO WORK, CO2 HAS TO BE RIDICULOUSLY MORE ABSORBENT IN ORDER TO CAUSE CATASTROPHE!
but i can't seem to find these four very important numbers...maybe someone can help?
What % of the IR radiation spectrum can CO2 molecule absorb?
What % of the IR radiation spectrum can nitrogen molecule absorb?
What % of the IR radiation spectrum can oxygen molecule absorb?
What % of the IR radiation spectrum can methane molecule absorb?
Bullpuma 7 months ago
Ok, you win, if you continue to make statements without supplying evidence for it you lose this debate. Where do you get your numbers? Fox News Network? You have yet to validate one statement you have made and have in fact contradicted yourself. How do you expect my or anyone to take you serious? Good bye my confused friend. May you come to see through the blindness caused by your biases.....
clgrayson1 7 months ago
@clgrayson1 "You have yet to validate one statement you have made"
I told you, it's not my responsibility to educate you, and quite frankly I don't care if you choose to reject reality. Also, can't post url's in YT comments.
"and have in fact contradicted yourself."
Purely as a result of your failure to make sense.
"How do you expect my or anyone to take you serious?"
I don't care if you take me seriously, you're obviously driven by your denial. Like I said, search and educate YOURSELF.
TrevorBlack79 7 months ago
I am a biologist I have a degree and masters in all 3 main scientific studies ( physics , chemistry and biology ) and in all of that time I have found out that creationists are a bunch of codswallop who are too stupid to understand science
walrusmcwalrus 7 months ago
@walrusmcwalrus a degree and masters? Is that a masters degree in all three of those areas? How long does that take? What schools did you attend? and before you start throwing how smart you are, I really am not a stupid person. I have read a ton of books from both sides and when I removed my biases from the picture i came to an amazing conclusion. To call the accredited scientists that disagree with your biases is somewhat stupid the a scientific point of view.....
clgrayson1 7 months ago
Do you all doubt your skepticism?
clgrayson1 8 months ago
Not a problem. I follow a theistic worldview and so I base my values on that worldview. You know, why am I explaining this to someone who is supposed to be educated. Did you ever answer me why the fossil shows things appearing abruptly? Please answer that question and I will answer yours?
clgrayson1 8 months ago
Ok are we talking micro or macro? perhaps you could answer me how things show up in the fossil record fully formed. I have never really gotten a good answer for that question so I ask as many people as I can hoping for are revelation?
clgrayson1 8 months ago
@clgrayson1 "Ok are we talking micro or macro?"
There's no difference.
"perhaps you could answer me how things show up in the fossil record fully formed."
They don't.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79" Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science". Do you have evidence to back up your statement that fossils don't show up fully formed in the fossil record?
clgrayson1 7 months ago
@clgrayson1 "Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science"
"Macro-evolution" is the exact same process as "micro-evolution." Changes that diverge one population into two or more distinct populations HAVE been observed in nature, numerous times.
"Do you have evidence to back up your statement that fossils don't show up fully formed in the fossil record?"
Every fossil is of a fully formed organism, so your inquiry is nonsense.
TrevorBlack79 7 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Once again, I cut and paste my answer out of a scientific journal although I didn't say that at the time. If you do even a cursory search about micro and macro evolution you will see your comment is non sense. and also you proved my point in your statement. My point is that every fossil appears as a fully formed fossil. so how does that support evolution from one species to another species? Please add links for me to check this science. This issue is very important me. thanks
clgrayson1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@clgrayson1 "I cut and paste my answer out of a scientific journal although I didn't say that at the time."
Which article from which journal?
"If you do even a cursory search about micro and macro evolution you will see your comment is non sense."
No, it isn't. Micro- and macro-evolution are products of the exact same process - natural selection.
TrevorBlack79 7 months ago
@clgrayson1 "My point is that every fossil appears as a fully formed fossil. so how does that support evolution from one species to another species?"
Define "fully formed," and explain how an organism could be anything but "fully formed." Further, explain how this disputes evolution.
"Please add links for me to check this science."
It's not my responsibility to educate you.
"This issue is very important me. "
Clearly not.
TrevorBlack79 7 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 by the way, two days ago you said that fossils don't show up fully formed and yet today you say, "Every fossil is of a fully formed organism, so your inquiry is nonsense." So I ask, what is non sense?
clgrayson1 7 months ago
@clgrayson1 "by the way, two days ago you said that fossils don't show up fully formed and yet today you say, "Every fossil is of a fully formed organism, so your inquiry is nonsense." So I ask, what is non sense?"
My apologies for not initially understanding your question, but the burden of presenting an understandable inquiry is on the person making the inquiry. If I can't understand what you're asking, it's your responsibility to clarify yourself.
TrevorBlack79 7 months ago
@clgrayson1 And I'm still not sure what you're asking. Evolution is an extremely gradual process, and each offspring is a "fully formed" organism that inherits the traits of its parents. Regarding the so-called difference between micro- and macro-evolution, organisms inherit tiny changes from their parents. Enough tiny changes add up to large changes. If you add enough inches together, you eventually get a mile, for a crude analogy.
TrevorBlack79 7 months ago
@clgrayson1 All you have to do is google "proof of evolution" to receive the answers to your questions. The fact that you haven't found the answers is evidence enough that you've never looked. Evolution is the most well-supported scientific theory in human history, and you're clearly motivated by a denial mentality. You don't want your questions answered, you just want to push whatever (Most likely religious) agenda you prefer.
TrevorBlack79 7 months ago
@clgrayson1 And a question for you:
Virtually every single biologist, paleontologist, and geneticist says that evolution is a fact. Seriously, the consensus is overwhelmingly tipped in favor of the scientific model for evolution. Do you believe that 99.85% of these scientists are involved in the most elaborate conspiracy in human history, or that they're victims of the most severe misapprehension of fact in human history?
TrevorBlack79 7 months ago
@clgrayson1 Since I can only guess as to what you meant, I'll lay it out simply. The fossil record shows a gradual transition spanning ~3.5b years. The first organisms were bacterial, and as time progresses organisms grow in complexity. There are no human fossils intermingled with dinosaur fossils, there are no land animals mixed in with the cambrian fossils. The fossil record alone is enough to prove evolution. Of course, we have a great deal more than that. Evolution is an established fact.
TrevorBlack79 7 months ago
GLOBAL WARMING = END TIMES!!! Sounds like a religion to me...
Stop using wasteful lightbulbs... REPENT NOW!!!
kc0itf 8 months ago
@kc0itf And just so you know, everyone follows some sort of religion. And anyway, I would just like people to act responsibly. We are really just a bunch of overgrown infants......
clgrayson1 8 months ago
@clgrayson1 Really? I follow a religion? I don't believe in God and I certainly don't believe in global warming/climate change has proposed by prophet Al Gore...
According to NCSE, I'm already quite the heretic... not sure if I fall on the continuum they created!
kc0itf 8 months ago
@kc0itf Yes, you subscribe to some worldview where you derive your values from. Same as me and you would say I am religious. You can't use that logic against me if you aren't using it on yourself. But thanks for trying.....
clgrayson1 8 months ago
@clgrayson1 What does worldview have to do with values? Perhaps you could give an example?
kc0itf 8 months ago
@clgrayson1 "And just so you know, everyone follows some sort of religion."
I don't think so. The wold religion is clearly defined and there are plenty of individuals who don't spend their time believing in things.... therefore, they don't subscribe to a religious belief system. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, explain why.
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm First of all, what is this world religion you speak of? And second, do you know anything about world views at all? I will need to know since my answer will assume you do.
clgrayson1 7 months ago
@clgrayson1 "First of all, what is this world religion you speak of?"
Sorry, it was a misspelling: The word 'religion' is clearly defined...
"do you know anything about world views at all?"
Sure, I'm familiar with world views.
So, I would argue that there are plenty of individuals who don't spend their time believing in things; and therefore, don't subscribe to a religious belief system. Am I right or wrong? Explain?
blaisingm 7 months ago
So, this is how "science" progresses... not by discussion, experimentation, and the gathering of evidence and facts, but by court ruling!
In other words, to win a scientific debate, have the judicial branch decide! Don't waste your time getting a degree and getting into debt, just put on a black robe!!!
kc0itf 8 months ago
I hate to point out this little matter, the theory of evolution is just that, A THEORY!!!! I fail to see how keeping an objective mind and allowing all the different thoughts in the discussion hurts. Thank GOD I am no longer protected like I was in school. It is a shame that we allow people like you to manipulate the teaching system in this country. It's no wonder we are not smarter than a fifth grader.
clgrayson1 8 months ago
@clgrayson1 "the theory of evolution is just that, A THEORY!!!!"
Exactly! Just like the theory of gravity, germ theory, and heliocentric theory! Since theories explain facts, it's obvious that evolution is both an observed FACT (Populations of organisms change over time) and a scientific THEORY (Natural selection is the driving force of that observed change)!
I'm so glad you understand what "A THEORY" is!
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Nice answer, I am with you up until your comment about consensus on global warming (which is true) consensus belongs with creationism, its science by popular thought and very far from the scientific method. While I don't think global warming is a hoax, I do agree with R Lindzen that it is greatly exaggerated. Its true that many projections (not predictions) have come to be true but a great many more have been in error. Part 1
glennimmortal 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 When most skeptics spout on about the errors in the IPCC report (which I think have now been redeemed and removed). The scary issues are the things removed, the parts about Global warming killing the Amazon, the Himalayan Glaciers etc... Whats left is not very scary, but the AGW supporters say oh well the science is solid and robust, but all that means is a doubling of CO2 should cause 1c of warming which is just about a fact. Their is no consensus on the feedback systems. part 2
glennimmortal 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 The only strength Consensus should be given is in a Democracy, even then it can still be very wrong (George Bush comes to mind). Science does not care what a majority thinks the truth is an immovable cornerstone.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein
glennimmortal 8 months ago
@glennimmortal I don't disagree. However, until an experiment proves a scientific theory wrong, that theory is the best known model of reality. In regards to evolution, over 150 years of experimentation has upheld the theory, and it is the most well-supported theory in human history, trumping literally all other scientific models, regardless of their field. In regards to climate change, is gambling the habitability of our one and only planet worth ignoring the current scientific consensus?
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
Global warming is a complete scam, 31000 scientists in the US, 9000 of which have have doctorates completely disagree with global warming how it is taught today.
Heretic157 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Heretic157 "Global warming is a complete scam, 31000 scientists in the US, 9000 of which have have doctorates completely disagree with global warming how it is taught today."
Where are you getting your 31k figure, and how many of those "doctorates" are in climatology?
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
What she calls mainstream christianity (theistic evolution at around 17:00) is of course compatible with the faith, but it's just another concession.
I.e.:
1500's: god did it
1800's: humans lived with dinosaurs
1900's: maybe evolution
2000's: okay, evolution, but that's just *how* god did it [eye roll]
AR333 8 months ago
The Sun neither goes around the Earth, nor the Earth around The Sun. The Sun and Earth both orbit a common centre of gravity (or barycentre).
Barkspawn 8 months ago
@Frosti2008 I took religious education. I recieved an A*. I don't consider myself ignorant and devote time every day to bettering my understanding of simply everything. Think for a second, how Harry Potter novels has more consistency, less contradiction and less warmongering inhumanity than the top two holy books. Like most religious followers, you were probably indoctrinated whilst still young. I don't pity you, I'm sure ignorance is bliss.
JaySmith91 8 months ago
Why do they keep on calling creationism science??????
creationismisstupid 8 months ago
Fantastic organisation! Wish you folks all the best in the future :D
mamolian 8 months ago
@Frosti2008 But it is a sky genie. It's an archaic story of a sky genie whose powers are attributed to causing, creating, saving or otherwise affecting all of the things which you don't understand. Fcking fail.
JaySmith91 8 months ago
@Frosti2008 It's a damn archaic story of a magical sky genie, with powers such that all of the things you don't understand are, by default, attributed to his magic powers. Fcking fail.
JaySmith91 8 months ago
US public education system = FAIL
vrd180 8 months ago
@Frosti2008
So why does a god need us to survive?
twaallen32 8 months ago
Speaker time codes:
Eugenie Scott 0:00
Glenn Branch 24:50
Josh Rosenau 45:30
Another great and informative presentation by the NCSE folks, thanks!
fknwtf 8 months ago
Every step forward we have taken as a species has been during the absence of religion .
torrid426 8 months ago
werecow2003: the last talk, by Josh, is the only one focused on climate change. You might also check out this video: NCSE and climate change in the "recent interviews" playlist.
NatCen4ScienceEd 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Frosti2008
God does not exist.
torrid426 8 months ago
@Frosti2008: Sorry, but you have the wrong person; I don't think I have ever said such. But I'm still interested in your symbiont model. What exactly does god get from us that he needs to survive?
puncheex 8 months ago
@Frosti2008: The explanatory power of your arguments is overwhelming in it's pitifulness.
puncheex 8 months ago
@Frosti2008: Oh, good rhetoric. No answer, just repeat and then insult. If that's what symbiosis entails, you can have it.
puncheex 8 months ago
All good through the first two speakers. Then the third guy tries so damned hard to sell the computer modelling. Very disappointing. I was going to click like ealier. Glad I'd held off.
356pla 8 months ago
@Frosti2008: Symbiotic? In what way does your God require anything we can supply? He needs our prayers? He craves our companionship? Sorry, symbiotic implies roughly mutual met needs on both sides. What we have here is parasitism, even if he created the parasites. The rest is wishful thinking.
puncheex 8 months ago
The 'theory' of Evolution is backed by incontrivertable evidence. Global warming being out of control because of human action is not.
356pla 8 months ago
@Frosti2008 Well mine is based in reality. Your god is whatever you want it to be. You could eat little babies and say its fine because your god said so.
WestleyFSM 8 months ago
@WestleyFSM Ooh... they did that in leviticus actually xD
PalulukanMakto 8 months ago
You can tell the CAGW-alarmists are getting desperate.
CHIPSTERO7 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Frosti2008 1)What you call superstition is just a deeper understanding of the nature of reality. Proof? none.
2) God is symbiotic with us. Proof? none.
3) Technology will never rule over us. Proof? none.
4) We are spiritual beings. Proof? none.
5)atheism will not bring anything beneficial to humanity. Proof? none.
You see how you can't stand your arguments along side science which is based upon cold hard evidence?
neverfearchrisishere 8 months ago
@Frosti2008 I can use my mind to deduce the best morality. To call that authority would be silly.
WestleyFSM 8 months ago
@Frosti2008 *Too
WestleyFSM 8 months ago
@Frosti2008 Really? Secular progress has brought a better living to third world countries. You thinking your god will do it helps NOTHING.
WestleyFSM 8 months ago
From this talk I gather that there was also another talk that focused on climate change in particular. Is that talk available anywhere?
werecow2003 8 months ago
if they taught creationism bullshit in my highschool we'd all be retarded. Thank society for barring this trash from the education system.
destructopoo 8 months ago
Big thanks for the upload!
AtheistStream 8 months ago
Wow, the billboard says that the origin of species was rewritten over and over and that the bible wasn't? O.O
theshredator 8 months ago
Is it just me or do others here think Genie Scott is one sexy woman?
SissingPyd 8 months ago
Will be be discovering a draft text containing the phrase "cdesign climate proponentsists"?
Darienbeagle 8 months ago
@CavedRhinos if only creationists were smart enough to realize this.
TFSMisTheTruth 8 months ago
7:27 - wow, that is a blatant lie (the graphic btw). The bible has been rewritten so many times that it is rediculous (why else would we refer to it as the King James version).
nukepwetty 8 months ago
@CavedRhinos Wrong. Creation is based on silly 'fairy' tales.
Dqowreorn 8 months ago
@CavedRhinos Corrections: Creation is based on silly tales, not "creation is based on silly holy tales"
72dew 8 months ago
People who don't understand the scientific method are never going to move past their fear and misunderstanding of evolution, which is a scientific study. Scientists don't go "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if all the life we see came from one source?! Hey let's just keep investigating things in such a way it suits our belief!!". If something isn't worth studying and is proven to be false, guess what: science makes that conclusion and moves on, it doesn't sit still try to prove false opinions!
berner 8 months ago 2
@berner
Creationists dont think like that at all.
They look at real scientific evidence.
And then lie and distort it to fit into their fucked up bullshit and top it off with candy to make fuckhead thick idiots believe the shyte.
FatRakoon 8 months ago 2
@FatRakoon What you describe would require a level of intelligence I have yet to see in a creationist. That said, I salute your positive approach and wishful thinking.
SissingPyd 8 months ago
@berner: No, it's perfectly possible to live with an ignorance of science, just as most people live in ignorance of how their car works. You just trust it will be there is you perform the required maintenance. What you need knowledge of science for is to work with it. As the man says, soon everyone will have their own GM chart. What will they do with it? Those that ignore it will wind up in the same bin as those who don't know anything about computers.
puncheex 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey moron's think outside the box lord Monckton and Alex Jones have proved that their aint no global warming!
KnightofChrist7779 8 months ago