@simpsonmark Umm, why did you say that (not) in reply to me? I've never suggested that everything came from nothing, and I'm neither a deist nor a theist. I do object when either theists or atheists claim that science refutes theistic beliefs, but only because I think it's dangerous to make indoctrinated people choose between science and a religion they've been raised to believe in at all costs.
Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method as this evolution BELIEF cannot be duplicated nor predicted. Only brainwashed idiots BELIEVE in Macro Evolution.
Its quite funny how Evolutionists do not understand the Scientific Method, all they do is make excuses based on TIME. roflmao! Such brainwashed dupes.
Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method as this evolution BELIEF cannot be duplicated nor predicted. Only brainwashed idiots BELIEVE in Macro Evolution.
@parasitesarefunny Macro evolution is micro evolution in a much larger period of time , million of years , dont be stupid , that cant be observed while its happens . But we could observe the fossile records , and lucky for us , we have a LOT of these.
@parasitesarefunny We don't have to observe an event directly to be justified in concluding that event occurred. Much of our scientific knowledge is based well-supported inferences regarding past events rather than direct observations of the events themselves. For example, in the case of a murder, we can't directly observe the murder ourselves. Does that mean we can't conclude anything? No. We can make predictions about whose DNA we'd expect at the scene, and the DNA tests can be replicated.
@parasitesarefunny Similarly, despite the fact that many (though not all) cases of speciation occur over incredibly long time frames, making it often impossible to observe the phenomenon directly, there is an extraordinarily immense number of instances where multiple lines of evidence from fields such as genetics, paleontology, and morphology independently justify the conclusion that speciation has occurred in the past. Evolutionary theory drives research in many fields. It's legitimate science.
@ostralopithicus Well-said! You clearly understand scientific methodology and how science works. I would like to add 1 more thing for experimentation: On the contrary to popular belief, the fact that an experiment failed to support your hypothesis doesn't really mean the hypothesis is false. If you're a wise experimenter and statistician, you would understand what I'm talking about...
Critically, Experiments must attempt to prove hypotheses FALSE -- If they do not, then it is NOT science. Furthermore, a result that FAILS to falsify the hypothesis does NOT make the hypothesis true. In fact, science doesn't show anything to be true. It merely rules out false hypothesis -- and that is ALL it does. By indicating that science shows us how the world works, this video overstates what science is and does.
I wish everyone understood what science is as well as this guy. There would be no more pointless arguments about science fact. The problem in reality is that when people don't understand science, for some reason they think they know better.
3:29 Actually even if the results of a experiment contradicts with the hypothesis you still need to present the report to discuss the fault on the hypothesis and to recommend what should be done to research further.
@Luigi84289 No, a scientific theory is not a string of facts. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been prevalently supported by a large series of experiments, simplet explanation based on the Occam's Razor concept, and yet to be falsified or modified based on new empirical evidence...
Great series, but Aristotle did NOT say that the only way of attaining knowledge was through debate. In fact, many of his surviving works are early examples of field research (check his biological treatsies). It was PLATO who was less keen on empirical investigation.
@entehrend =And it can't be falsified or replicated.= It can be falsified by finding evidence that it is incorrect, and an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that our universe began by other means. Replication does not mean a phenomenon has to be replicated, otherwise we would have very few theories in science, it means that the experiments, calculations and some observations that make up the evidence for the Big Bang have to be able to be replicated. So the theory can indeed be tested.
@potholer54 Using your logic, creation by God is correct as it can be falsified by finding evidence that it is incorrect. Again, such claims malign science. Beliefs do not qualify as science - showing an observation OR a repeatable test case of what you claim happens actually happening is science.
@ForumLight Using *your* logic, an astronomer who theorizes that large stars may end their life as a black hole, who uses mathematics to calculate how massive such a sun needs to be, who calculates what the effects of black holes would be on other objects, who searches the sky for such evidence and finds it, is not doing science.
According to you, he's only doing science if he sees a star turn into a black hole, or makes a star turn into a black hole.
@ForumLight Pluto orbiting the sun is a religion! Since it's predicted orbital period is 248 years, and we've only know about it for 81, this is clearly a case where science becomes faith, right? I mean, it could well just fly off the solar system...
@entehrend See 4:07 onwards, it has your answer. But if you don't want to: by your logic, nobody will ever test a murder, because you can't re-kill the person. Likewise, what about the orbit of Pluto? Nobody ever saw Pluto finish an orbit... what if it doesn't even orbit the Sun? Your "argument" is based on a misunderstanding of "replication", which is addressed in the video.
"This whole video was wrong :(" that conclusion would be apropos to the video if the video would address Big Bang theory
"What about the big bang theory, you can't even test that theory. And it can't be falsified or replicated."
Not when a Catholic Priest first gets a notion of alternate creation from the gravaty egnigma (with so much mass it either "needs to be expanding to resits gravity or collapsing under the weight of gravity" ) and found "proof" of expansion in Hubbles Red shift data (ignoring the equal to more massive blue shift depending where you looked
No, just as "Big Bang" or more correctly Super Atom Theory replaced Steady State Universe Theory by consensus in theorectical Physics as holes were punched in the fact that the Universe isn't constant "Big Bang" has to many holes in it from unequal distribution of matteer theoughut the Universe to the fact that "everything coming from 1 atom" breaks laws of Physics (nothing can be created or destroyed)
Enter "Null Physics" and "MUltiverse Bubble" theory as new contenders
@entehrend yeah, that's why it's a theory, because it can't be proven... That kind of science is more complicated than you and I could comprehend, but it doesn't mean the methods are wrong... Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it's wrong... But I guess you can't conclude that it's right either...
@entehrend not everyone believes in the big bang, it has nothing to do with evolution.
besides on that note god exsists without reasion or purpose and without creation. by that logic so can everything else.
so your right and wrong ant that a bitch?
p.s. in time im sure we will be able to do tests proving that it might just be true. nothing is absolute or complete reguardless weather its right or wrong. theres always room to learn/know something new.
@entehrend The big bang theory is the result of an observation made most of a century ago that the universe is expanding.
The video in fact makes the exact opposite of the claim you're making. Listen from 4:12 to 4:50. The observations upon which the big bang is based are available to all. That's why it's accepted.
Energy creates life, sustains life, created the universe, is eternal, energy must be person to create finite things from its infinite self, gosh energy already sounds a lot like God.
@InterbredRollmops I meant infinite in life span, not amount. Energy is eternal. I don't think energy is just the ability to do work but it does enables things to do work just has water enables us to stay hydrated. But energy itself is a substance in the universe, and I see it has just about every attribute that God has. Also, what caused the big bang? Energy. Energy created the universe apparently.
@InterbredRollmops "The definition of energy is the ability of a system to do work. Nothing else."
Then that definition is misleading because apparently, energy is a substance that exists and is not dependent on what uses it. Take for example electricity, or nutrition.
"How do you know this?"
The theory says the big bang was caused when the 4 fundamental forces separated from each other, which required a lot of energy.
I would rather say that you have totally misunderstood what energy is. You claim it to be a substance, which it isn't. That's like saying mass is a substance. If it were, then you could somehow remove it and have a pure form of it, which you can't (even in theory).
Also, we do not know ANYTHING about what caused the big bang, we can't even go back to the beginning of it, so where do you get your idea that the four forces once were one?
@nazra7 "Take for example electricity, or nutrition." I assume by 'nutrition' you mean the energy we get from food. That's just chemical energy, the difference in separation of electric charges for two particular states. 'Electricity' likewise isn't energy itself, but the separation of charges in a circuit.
"The theory says the big bang was caused when the 4 fundamental forces separated from each other"
No. That wasn't the cause. It was a consequence of the nature of our universe.
@Misterb0z "the difference in separation of electric charges for two particular states."
Yet this energy is containable, usable, and its independent of what uses. It can exist without something using it. Its an individual entity, a substance.
"No. That wasn't the cause. It was a consequence of the nature of our universe."
No it's not because that happened before the universe existed. And that event led up to the universe's existence, thus it was its cause.
@nazra7 "It can exist without something using it." This is true of gravitational potential energy. Kinetic energy. Nuclear energy. What's your point? "Its an individual entity, a substance." No, it's not. Energy exists in different forms, and can be transferred from one form to another. "And that event led up to the universe's existence, thus it was its cause." Utterly wrong. Look it up: bit. ly/jg DoN
Bible Logic is Better than your foolish scientific method,you only need to open your eyes and look,Do you see God? of coarse you don't! It only proves that God is not here, He's up there in heaven,exactly what the bible says..
You ignore those rules which are also followed, but which *aren't* acknowledged and which limit the value of science.
Scientists make certain assumptions about the nature of reality. They ignore evidence which conflicts either with either these assumptions, or with existing dogmas which were based on these assumptions. New paradigms are attacked irrationally and old dogmas are defended religiously. Scientists who break these rules risk losing their funding and soon learn to toe the line.
"As long as no other theories remotely match this consistency, Jane's theory is a fact and can be added to school textbooks." No theory is a fact. DERP
@Andreazor If you love the scientific method, then you should consider being a Jew or Christian, since they invented it, based on creationist philosophy. See below and above posts.
@TruthIsLife7 and if you love fireworks then you should become Chinese, because they invented them based on Chinese principles. Oh, hang on, no, that's a shit argument.
@Misterb0z Even if that was the only defense for God, which it most certainly isn't, there would be almost no similarity. How often did the Chinese state something without trial and error that was 1000s of years ahead of science? How often did their holy books conflict with the conventional science of their time, add decades to to life and only finally get understood in the last century, with the National Institute of Health committing $5 million just this year for further study? Much more
@TruthIsLife7 Oh, plenty of people swear by Chinese medicine, and their science easily rivalled that of the Greeks. And it was the Greeks who were thousands of years ahead of the Abrahamic tribes. There's nothing 'scientific' in the Bible that wasn't known by the Greeks. Post hoc matching of spurious verses to scientific understanding do not a holy book make.
For those who want verification of comments below, Dr. Hannam gave a presentation on some at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history&started by a creationist).
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
He has degrees in physics & history from Oxford &London universities&a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge University&wrote “The Genesis of Science:How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” This has been reviewed positively by the New Scientist, Nature and others.
P.S. to the below. Christians medieval and later invented or pioneered occam's razor, falsifiability, the modern scientific method, peer review and most fields of of science. Atheists should have the decency to thank Christianity which ALONE out of 1000s of cultures developed these as well as universities where they could be used extensively (not to mention freedom of religion). Also, the roots of these processes and significant science is often directly based on Bible's or science.
@potholer54 Sorry for late response. Been extremely busy. I commend you for your willingness to correct errors. Too many in all views aren't. Your 10 commandments for science are quite good too! Many were 1st used in the Bible! Very good point on rules too and good explanation of the scientific method.
1) God usually gave evidence in the Bible before He asked for faith. The 1st use of the modern scientific method with a control group was by Daniel in ~600 BC (I have a peer reviewed paper on this).
"God usually gave evidence in the Bible before He asked for faith"
lol
People where afraid when God would speak to them straight from thee sky so one day they all got together and had a volunteer confront God to not be speaking to them straight from the sky all the time
GOd agreed and the Representative became known as a "Prophet"
Over time people becan to wonder if God existed or denied GOd did (Out of sight,out of mind)
Look at how quickly they lost faith when Moses "disapeared"
Evidence was not anathema to the medieval church (note that I disagree with Catholic theology almost as much as its half sister atheism, but we should give credit even to those we disagree with). Middle Ages Christians did not only use logic. They invented the modern scientific method LONG before Galileo. They were also pioneering much science and laying the foundations for modern science. See the link below on Dr. Hannam’s presentation.
2) Makers and producers of products often tell you how they work since they designed them. Those who doubt them can test them with the scientific method. Conflating the legal system with manufacturers is not a correct comparison. Designers can tell you how things have worked due to their design purpose and observations and testing of that. I shouldn’t have to tell you that Christians consider God the Designer and Creator and so His claims about what He himself designed are not a legal thing.
They are a Creator telling how things work. He tells those who doubt his claims that they can test them and science and history have done so extensively and the track record of Bible science and history is simply unrivaled in all history.
The video misunderstands creation badly. In most areas, the actual evidence and data support creation science far more strongly than evolution. But, secularists asserted by prejudice that science can’t point to the supernatural (even though quite a few aspects of the supernatural are fully testable). Then courts said you can’t teach anything religious in schools for political reasons (perverting the constitution). When is it OK for politics to decide scientific questions???
These two movements directly attacked the foundation of science that science should follow WHEREVER the evidence leads, without banning any conclusions a priori and have caused DIRE ignorance about testable evidence.
A similar thing would be to assert that democracy has no evidence of its benefits and ban all the evidence for it from schools and academia due to political reasons and keep millions in ignorance (something that has been done by many atheist regimes). When testable conclusions and testable evidence is being banned a priori, science has been abandoned and propaganda is in full control. This has indisputably happened in the area of creation science.
Proof is most definitely used in science. It's not hard to find many papers using this term. The History Channel series on geology "How the Earth Began" uses it countless times. Something being proved doesn't mean it’s infallible. It just means we’ve proven it beyond all reasonable doubt.
Last, science is an amazing tool, but it has limits&also sometimes makes false claims&even regresses (often due to the use of fallacies &a priori assumptions like the above).
1) Bible science told us that the ideal diet is fresh vegetarian food ~3,000 years ago. For decades vitamins have been trumpeted as very important. But, research is coming out now that shows that man made vitamins don’t help much at all and it’s the original fresh food and combinations of that that are far more healthful.
2) Bible health principles which deal strongly with preventing sickness were ignored by most for millennia. ~70% of Egyptian medicines used dung, beer or both. Until the 18th century or so, most secular medicine was more likely to kill you than cure you.
@potholer54 Almost all of your comments about medieval thinkers are false. Dr. Hannam has degrees in physics & history from Oxford &London universities and a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge University and wrote “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” This has been reviewed very positively by major secular scientists & Almost organizations. See his presentation on it at the Royal Society.
@TruthIsLife7 =Almost all of your comments about medieval thinkers are false.= I don't know what "comments" you are referring to, but if I got something wrong then of course I will correct it, as I have done previously. Please message the erroneous statement to me, along with whatever evidence you have that it is wrong. Thanks.
But, the Bible’s health principles added decades of life to people in the past (+MANY other benefits) and even now, those who follow Bible health science live ~10+ years longer than others and this has been extensively documented by the NIH, NCI, National Geographic, Blue Zones and other secular organizations. See my playlist “Bible health science” (Video 1, 11:30+ and video #2 especially. See notes for peer reviewed resources.).
@TruthIsLife7 Don't bother to point out mistakes in his videos. Potboiler (whose real name is Peter Hadley) is impervious to feedback. All his videos are full of blunders, but he's too insecure to accept feedback, let alone act on it.
@Drgamedood Where? Jews like Daniel also did a good deal.
“Around 600 BC, Daniel of Judah conducted…the earliest recorded clinical trial. His trial compared the health effects of a vegetarian diet with those of a royal Babylonian diet over a 10-day period. The strengths of his study include the use of a contemporaneous control group, use of an independent assessor of outcome, and striking brevity in the published report.” Dr. David Grimes, wwwDOTncbiDOTnlmDOTnihDOTgov/pubmed/7501328
Kids are fed a whole bunch of lies in the classroom. Gaileo's "trial" was political, not religion or science based. Columbus wasn't a courageous adventurer, but pompous, stupid, and greedy. People never believed in a flat earth until about 100 years ago. Galileo never said we came from monkeys.
Science is definitely NOT objective. That is why macro-evolution is still taught.
@sethsdl999 first off, a lot of old cultures believed in a flat earth floating on water, others not. So your claim is invalid. second, all that you say, is not in the field of science, but in the field of history. So you can only make the claim, history is definitely not obective. it doesn't say's anything about science or discoveries in the field of science. And macro-evolution?really? such a stupid term.
@jakiedark No old cultures did. This lie came up 100 years ago by citing heretics and backed it up by circular citing. Any historian of science will say this. Just Google "The myth of the Flat Earth" or Jeffery Burton Russel "Inventing the Flat Earth." As for the objectivity, it is impossible to go into science with a completely objective view. Look up Barbour's "Religion in an age of Science". It's available online. And how is macroevolution stupid when I learned it in a college Biology Class?
@sethsdl999 because if find it a stupid term. evolution is evolution, done. you can discriminate between the two, but when you accept one of the two, you also accept the other. And i google flat earth, and if found that the old nors culture, chinese and japan ( to name a few) believed in a flat earth.
and sure a objective view is possible. And all big discoveries are dubbel checked, wich takes away any original opinion from the first scientist.
@sethsdl999 is sounds like a intresting book, and intresting for religious people. But i dont see the connection with your claim. Science is about discovering how things work, or how to improve things. Not to disprove any religious claims, if that is what your thinking. A lot of scientist don;t even bother with the question, will my findings prove or disprove religioun? they have a hypothesis, and they want to test it if it is true or not. thats all.
@jakiedark That doesn't mean science isn't completely objective. It's impossible to go into science or just about any field without subjectivity. We all bring in our suppositions and experiences into our fields. Just because people think they're being objective doesn't mean they are.
And LOT'S of scientists go out of their way to try and disprove religion. And, going in to science myself, I don't find them very convincing. There are too many holes and too many flaws.
@sethsdl999 a lot of scientist dont disprove religion, but either disprove creatonist crap, or simply want to know the truth about something. also, please be precise about what field of science your talking about. There so many fields, i dont want to figure it out myself, takes forever. and since you already know it, it saves me time.
And in this video it is explained how science is objective and how personal views are taken out. Simply put, a lot of people look at it. go watch the video.
@jakiedark I did. I'm still not convinced. Why not read Barbour's article that I mentioned and see the subjectivity of science? And I've seen science point more towards to creation than the the farce of evolution. Scientist fail to bring up how unlikely it is and the fact that. It takes a lot more faith to believe in science than creation. In fact, people treat science as a religion (like Richard Dawkins). As for these comments, I've given my two cents and am done. No sense beating a dead horse.
@sethsdl999 farce of evoltution? move towards creation? takes faith? unlikely? why do i got the feeling that the one beating a dead horse is me? there is a lot of evidence suporting the theorie of evolution, none that move towards creation. And also a lot proving and 'old' earth. None that goes toward, god or anyone else created it. And not my problem that some people see science as religion, there mistake.
well, thanks for your two cent and have a nice life.
@sethsdl999 I have to commend with you here (except for the creation part). Indeed, Richard Dawkins is a disgrace simply because he is using science as a method to debunk god, when in fact he's abusing it. Science has no applications to prove or debunk the supernatural due to the fact that all scientific inquiry are at best tentative & never absolutely proven. Whether or not you believe in the paranormal or the supernatural, it's irrelevant in science.
I don't know about you,but we are guilty intill proven not guilty,or we wouldnt be in jail on hold first.Must be because of these creatards running the system :(
(2) and if you read all my post- I did something that is very scientific- I did give you an explination of why muslims have been praying towards a stone for the last 1400 years. This explenation is also BETTER then the one the muslim give you- wich is.. "because mohammed did so".."and they dont really pray towards it/worships it"
Biblical IDEA - claims they shoudl be decived. I got 10000000 ppl who worship a stone claiming they dont. Put an image of Bush there, or betweeb and they all refuse
(4) So basically we have a stone- from space- here on earth- that shoudl be Satan. Wired but thats what logic out of the biblical idea provides us. Where would such stone be? Most likely desert- as jungle, water is LIFE giving, and ENERGY preserving.
Also according ot bible- this SATAN shall be the GREAT deciver. So if we find-
1000000000 people praying towards a stone from space- located preferebly in the desert we might have a supporing evidence. And we have 1400 years of KABA in Mecca
@xtermeenator Evolution is not a claim. It is a scientific theory which explains all the observations relating to it. It has no evidence against it and is used by medical researchers all the time when developing vaccines that have saved thousands of lives. It is based on the scientific method that is also responsible for example your clothes. It might be made of nylon that was developed using the scientific method. If it is cotton irrigation and harvesting, wool with shears and so on.
@Tenocticatl And if she works for the Discovery Institute she can claim that she is indeed correct and it was "Darwinist Thugs" who ganged up against her.
@Tenocticatl She could write the paper, but it would be useless. Sure, a falsified hypothesis tells us something about the phenomenon or observation, but it doesn't expand our knowledge to any useful application. Working in research myself, I've found that many predictions I made turned out to be incorrect, but you have to keep working at it until you finally make that remarkable discovery, THEN your findings would be invaluable and publishing your data would be a lot easier.
@Forlo12345 If you have 1 000 000 people who suddenly walks up and down the water everyday- claiming a devine reason for it- is it not scientific to ask if they have been bitten by a bug? Is called a hypothesis I belive?
Is it not scientific to ask if they have been bitten by an invisible force? It is non science if you cant falsify the hypothesis- but if you can then its very much scientific.
@Punishment7 You're right, unfalsifiable hypotheses are useless and asserting their "truthfulness" without any research isn't science at all. However, I don't see how this comment relates to what I was saying about why making predictions and testing them is so important in research and, ultimately, the peer-review process. Could you please clarify, and this time without so many grammar and spelling errors? It is rather difficult to understand what you are trying to say.
I followed these 10 golden rules- I did like JANE...
And BIBLE is then TELLING THE TRUTH!!!
Bible is not a scientific book telling us of how the univers is made. Its a Holy book- telling us of spirits.
I "observerved" alot of irrational prayers- not very evelutionistic- and assumed they must have been bitten by a bug. No. Did not find such bug. Then went on to assume it was psycologic. No no such findings either. Then to assume an invisible force (ia. dark matter)..JACKPOT.
@gavhof How can you say nonsense? You have not even looked at the scientific evidence?
Not being able to recreate evelution- one have to conclude out of the evidence represented. Not being able to see an orbiting planet from a star far away - one have to use mirror effect to prove its there- (how the light wobbles). Simular we do with both dark matter and dark energy.
It then also make perfect sence to do simular method if plausible to the faith as well. Still JACKPOT when I tested
@gavhof Im too talk about science- but I dont call it NONSENSE..
Now- just like in 4:44 . what if JANE did rub an oil lamp- and a gene came out- and the gene will not come back until 1000 years- does that make it none true? No it just make it Non scientific.
However you can make any hypothesis based on the story of the bible- and you will find jackpot any time. However GOD does not want a none beliver to find him unless he is a beliver threw FAITH-so science stops where bible begins.
@Punishment7 well i am sure you are feeling very smug. you are welcome to live in your delusion if you like, despite the mountain of evidence that shows your holy book is a man made. the bible was truely seen as an historical document (and of course still is by some) until the advent of science and now you have to come out with nonsensical notions to support your belief. don't claim you have a scientific explanation for gods existence. you don't and you summed it up in your last sentence
@gavhof In my last senctence I asked you a question which you failed to answer. Very typical for people who has made science a faith. Here is your problem: if the scientist told you all diamonds in this univers was made from a smaller diamond.. you woudl belive it - not having a clue how that was done.. that is what you do in church. Belive. Its faith.
If you can not apply a scientific method to the bible- then you cant science. Its got nothing to do with the bible. When I did: JACKPOT!!!
@Punishment7 i have never made science my faith. if anything reason is my faith which you, by the very nature of your belief, have to through out the window. please spare me this jackpot argument. science is based on empirical evidence. i don't have the time, energy or interest in debating your contradictions and NONSENSE. BYE
@Punishment7 (2) I got a question for you- lets assume the bible was correct for a second (i belive you are capable of that): How or what object would you identify as satan- based on the knowledge we have of him in the bible. Satan: -Can take ANY SHAPE he likes -He is ANTI God -He HATES all Humans -He wants to be SOMETHING- (a god actually- worshipped by humans) -He HATES all GODs CREATIONs In this universe who/what object would you claim as suspect? (your answer must be logical)
@Punishment7 God is imaginary until proven otherwise. The bug you're referring to is called religion: It functions as a viral meme, and is detrimental to humans' critical thinking skills and intelectual integrity.
@Murdulo Let me re-quote you: God is imaginary until proven otherwise. Dark matter is imaginary until proven other wise. So is an orbiting planet around a distant star.
How do we prove dark matter- or the orbiting planet around a distant star? By looking at how they sets off their invisible fingerprints on to the surrounding objects - fingerprints threw physics. Its called the mirroring effect I belive?
So can we prove invisible forces- why not also into the spiritual world? Idid. I found.
@Punishment7 Dark matter and orbiting planets are real. We can see its effects, make predictions and confirm them. The measurements on them are objective and always produce the same results no matter who does the calculations or uses the equipment.
Your personal experience is, by definition, subjective and thus invalid as evidence. Sorry dude, the fact that you believe something doesn't make it true. Stop lying to yourself.
@Murdulo I will use your arguments (but 2new words):
"GOD"/Dark matter and "orbiting planets/"spirits" are real. We can see its effects, make predictions and confirm them. The measurements on them are objective and always produce the same results no matter who does the calculations or uses the equipment."
Do you agree to this statement if we could do this to GOD and Spirits too? (its your statement after all).
I say I can, I dont say its a "personal experience". But I say the idea is valid.
@Punishment7 Of course! If you could make predictions and repeat measurements objectively about god, I would accept its existence! The fact is... you haven't.
Everyone says they experienced god, and when asked about these experiences they normally are vague and easily mistakable for self-delusion or a lousy interpretation of natural events. Testimony is NOT evidence. So put away your wishful thinking and face the truth.
@Murdulo Lets experiment- let`s make you provide the hypothesis & I the biblical info we have.
1. We cant meet GOD unless threw blind faith (whr science stops). SATAN however we can reveal but he prefers to stay hidden and give bad influence from a distance.
2. SATANS crime is claiming himselft to be god, wanting to be worshipped by humans.
3. SATAN is the OPPOSITE of GOD.
4.GOD=CREATOR of LIFE
5.SATAN can take ANY SHAPE he PREFER, & HATES HUMANS
@Murdulo (2) take your time on that one. Be a detective- criminology is a branch in science. Come up with a hypothesis but remember- of all the objects in the entire universe - you should at least give us some direction in which we can find a "suspect" that shoudl be Satan..
@Murdulo "To talk about its properties or conduct, first you have to demonstrate he exists. Same with satan, same with unicorns, etc." -- this is not what EINSTEIN did. He proved the existence of "E" by showing more and more supporting evidence of it. Why cant this apply to proving the "unicorns" as well?
It is not illusions if its done scientificly is it? In scientific terms the bible is only an "idea". We can prove/disprove this idea if proper hypothesis are made. Logic- can provide:
@Punishment7 Prove the existence of E? So energy wasn't discovered till Einstein? Stop making stupid analogies if you don't understand scientific theories. And again, provide an argument or evidence for the existence of god.
The bible is a book, so that's a no-go.
The fact that we don't know where did energy originally come from doesn't mean it was god. It means we don't know, and you should recognize that.
So, got anything or is it just blind wishful thinking on your behalf?
@Murdulo I wrote "E" cause I didnt have all the letter to write E=mc^2.
However- your right bible is a book So was newtons Principia as well. The book provides you with an idea. An idea that you can create a hypothesis out from. A valid one. And then you- and I and ohters test is. and we have a theory. This you know. You only reluctant to do so when the idea is towards the spiritual world. yet most science point in directions of other dimensions. An observation is valid even if its 400 year old
@Punishment7 Relativity and newtonian physics are based on observations, and they are theories because they are explanatory, falsifiable, and confirmed throughout the times.
Saying "God exists" is an assertion, not an observation. There's no evidence in favour of it, so it's just wishful thinking. Furthermore, it has no explanatory power, it's not falsifiable and it doesn't have anything to back it up.
The bible, from verse 1, assumes god exists: It doesn't present the idea.
@Murdulo My idea of the God we meet in the bible is also based purely on observations and old witnessaccounts. I made a hypothesis of who the satan would be- it became a rather rediculas one, but I found it to be true. I have 2/5 of people who worship a stone in the desert claiming they dont- even thou every human from begining of time- will claim that exactly what they do. I observe GOD by same principle as we today observe Dark matter or an exo planet- by how it impact the surroundings.
@Murdulo (2) Further- my hypothesis is explanatory (even more then the one we have today from muslims themselves), its falsible, and its confirmed threwout the times.
Lets construct new hypothesis (I did):
Muslims claim they DONT worship the black moon stone attached at Kabbah- yet they kiss it and claim it shall come to life on judgement day. Now if you place an image of G.W.Bush infront of a muslim- he will refuse to pray towards it- as "hes prayers then goes to that object".
@Punishment7 That's not a hyphotesis, that's nonsense. What people worship or not worship has nothing to do with the existence of gods.
Again, give me evidence or arguments in favour of the existence of your god. If you don't have any of those two, then you're being dishonest with yourself and believe just because you want to believe. That's pathetic.
@Murdulo No not nonsense. Worship has everything to do with the existence of gods. You just dont like the nature of how a god influence (threw prayer), yet the scientific evidence is there. Would a man worshipping Jesus- end up doing Jihad? Who influenced him?
I have given you evidence AND arguments: The black stone in a desert- worshipped by 1400000000 people. There is NO explenations for that action, except the one given by the biblical idea (of the deciver) That makes it explanatory.
@Punishment7 Lots of people worshipped zeus. Is that god real for you? Lots of people worship Xenu. Is he real for you? Cultists have, after prayer, decided to commit mass suicide in order to meet jesus behind the halley comet. Was that jesus talking to them? Please.
And you repeat your statements as if I haven't adressed them. Lots of people worship a stone, therefore my god, the bible, paradise, hell and souls exist? NON SEQUITUR at its best.
@Murdulo (2) Who is GOD in the biblical idea? (funny how many is less reluctant to this sentence if I add "that Einstein provided".)
Well the answer is that GOD is the "creator". "Creations" is all that is developed over the years. Or in scientific terms- anything that has preserved energy one way or the other. Both science/bible say "all is made of energy/GOD, and energy/GOD can not be created nor dissapear". AND: Math say 0+0=0 NEVER =1. Something cant come from NOTHING. 0+0=0 always.
@Murdulo (3) so if GOD is the Creator - the one who uses ENERGY- and SATAN is the opposite of GOD.. Satan shall then be the least created object in the universe. the one who has no energy.
Vakuume, stardust, or a rock in space is then plausible suspects. But then we also know that SATAN wants to be something and to be worshipped by mankind. That narrows it down to a stone. in space..
Then JESUS say he saw Satan fell down to earth supporting our hypotheis so far. Where would such stone be?
I was never taught 'The Scientific Method' at school. In fact, having worked in a chemical laboratory testing/researching polyurethane the scientiic method was never mentioned. It was a case of, follow the method as close as one can and record the results.
I wish more people could see this video so they can understand the scientific method. It seems that for some reason people have not been taught it clearly enough in school and there are so many misunderstandings about how it works.
Many aspects of evolution do not follow the scientific method. Men assume that for example dinosaurs evolved into birds or that some how fish magically started to walk on land.
"Men assume that for example dinosaurs evolved into birds"
No, the theory predicts those things based on evidence, and subsequent tests have confirmed the predictions accuracy. You seem to still not understand how science works.
« Men assume that for example dinosaurs evolved into birds »
No, not assume: conclude, based on the available data, including the morphology of extant species of birds and reptiles, as well as the presence of various transitional forms between the clade and its derivatives.
You know that science does not propose magic: that's the domain of religion. Science provides testable models for how it happens through *natural* processes. Best you learn what evolutionary theory is about before you come here demonstrating your ignorance of its claims.
I really don't like how testing and falsifying one's own hypothesis are given negative connotations by having the scientist frown at them and smile at the confirmation (3:11 - 3:33). This notion creates incentive for faking data.
Yes,but "peer review" is a step before publication into a journal of Science Specifically
For example. the summary for policy makers is not a reserch paper being summited to a journal of science for peer review and publication
Neither is the UN 's IPCC a "Journal of Science" or their consensus agreement in the aforementioed summary to policy makers a verified and tested theory...at best its a prediction based on observance before years of testing
Galileo was a Christian (and still is) Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses let every word be established (O.T.) .Why should arcane symbols predict physical phenomena?MAGIC?
Sea dragons like DINOSAURS?God conceals himself from the wise and prudent and reveals himself to babes (proverb)The fact is God hides himself from you.God;s foolishness is wiser than man's Wisdom.Where are the NEW fossils?
Galileo was a Christian (and still is) Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses let every word be established (O.T.) .Why should arcane symbols predict physical phenomena?MAGIC?
Sea dragons like DINOSAURS?God conceals himself from the wise and prudent and reveals himself to babes (proverb)The fact is God hides himself from you.God;s foolishness is wiser than man's Wisdom.
Your videos should be taught in schools so students could learn something.. oh wait.. that would actually be teaching students...
sniped101 1 day ago
@sniped101 you'll never guess what my homework is...
activatedclone 4 hours ago
Comment removed
sniped101 1 day ago
Comment removed
simpsonmark 2 weeks ago
@simpsonmark Umm, why did you say that (not) in reply to me? I've never suggested that everything came from nothing, and I'm neither a deist nor a theist. I do object when either theists or atheists claim that science refutes theistic beliefs, but only because I think it's dangerous to make indoctrinated people choose between science and a religion they've been raised to believe in at all costs.
Misterb0z 1 week ago
Comment removed
simpsonmark 2 weeks ago
Won't a journal publish a paper where the results either negate the prediction or are inconclusive?
BJ219 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method as this evolution BELIEF cannot be duplicated nor predicted. Only brainwashed idiots BELIEVE in Macro Evolution.
Its quite funny how Evolutionists do not understand the Scientific Method, all they do is make excuses based on TIME. roflmao! Such brainwashed dupes.
parasitesarefunny 1 month ago
195 young earth creationists
IzzySpeaks 1 month ago
Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method as this evolution BELIEF cannot be duplicated nor predicted. Only brainwashed idiots BELIEVE in Macro Evolution.
parasitesarefunny 1 month ago
@parasitesarefunny Macro evolution is micro evolution in a much larger period of time , million of years , dont be stupid , that cant be observed while its happens . But we could observe the fossile records , and lucky for us , we have a LOT of these.
EdyMar77 1 month ago
@parasitesarefunny We don't have to observe an event directly to be justified in concluding that event occurred. Much of our scientific knowledge is based well-supported inferences regarding past events rather than direct observations of the events themselves. For example, in the case of a murder, we can't directly observe the murder ourselves. Does that mean we can't conclude anything? No. We can make predictions about whose DNA we'd expect at the scene, and the DNA tests can be replicated.
nichtmuttersprachler 1 month ago
@parasitesarefunny Similarly, despite the fact that many (though not all) cases of speciation occur over incredibly long time frames, making it often impossible to observe the phenomenon directly, there is an extraordinarily immense number of instances where multiple lines of evidence from fields such as genetics, paleontology, and morphology independently justify the conclusion that speciation has occurred in the past. Evolutionary theory drives research in many fields. It's legitimate science.
nichtmuttersprachler 1 month ago
@parasitesarefunny "Only brainwashed idiots BELIEVE in Macro Evolution."
Hmmm, I guess that means pretty much the entire scientific community.
robhoneycutt 4 weeks ago
@ostralopithicus Well-said! You clearly understand scientific methodology and how science works. I would like to add 1 more thing for experimentation: On the contrary to popular belief, the fact that an experiment failed to support your hypothesis doesn't really mean the hypothesis is false. If you're a wise experimenter and statistician, you would understand what I'm talking about...
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
Critically, Experiments must attempt to prove hypotheses FALSE -- If they do not, then it is NOT science. Furthermore, a result that FAILS to falsify the hypothesis does NOT make the hypothesis true. In fact, science doesn't show anything to be true. It merely rules out false hypothesis -- and that is ALL it does. By indicating that science shows us how the world works, this video overstates what science is and does.
ostralopithicus 2 months ago
I wish everyone understood what science is as well as this guy. There would be no more pointless arguments about science fact. The problem in reality is that when people don't understand science, for some reason they think they know better.
RussellHorwood 2 months ago
3:29 Actually even if the results of a experiment contradicts with the hypothesis you still need to present the report to discuss the fault on the hypothesis and to recommend what should be done to research further.
2000yurien 2 months ago
@Luigi84289 No, a scientific theory is not a string of facts. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been prevalently supported by a large series of experiments, simplet explanation based on the Occam's Razor concept, and yet to be falsified or modified based on new empirical evidence...
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
Great series, but Aristotle did NOT say that the only way of attaining knowledge was through debate. In fact, many of his surviving works are early examples of field research (check his biological treatsies). It was PLATO who was less keen on empirical investigation.
schenonef 3 months ago
what about: thou shall not have fealings and faith that your fantasy [creationism] is fact.
beeto45 3 months ago
I am forced to watch this video for a class, and it makes me want to slam my head off my desk...
markatwashington 3 months ago
So simple a talking ape could understand!
Heathensrule 4 months ago
mmmmmmmmmm........ spam is so tasty yummy ham
cupcakesandfondant 4 months ago
spam
cupcakesandfondant 4 months ago
Humbug?
Sorry, Thoust shalt not find any "cheat mode" here
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago in playlist Science 101
spam
spam
cupcakesandfondant 4 months ago
spam
cupcakesandfondant 4 months ago
Ahhh man you tokk out "Take a Day Off" from the ten commandments!!! such a slave driver -.- hahaha
MadMAn12gauge 4 months ago
What about the big bang theory, you can't even test that theory. And it can't be falsified or replicated.
This whole video was wrong :(
entehrend 4 months ago
@entehrend =And it can't be falsified or replicated.= It can be falsified by finding evidence that it is incorrect, and an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that our universe began by other means. Replication does not mean a phenomenon has to be replicated, otherwise we would have very few theories in science, it means that the experiments, calculations and some observations that make up the evidence for the Big Bang have to be able to be replicated. So the theory can indeed be tested.
potholer54 4 months ago
@potholer54 Using your logic, creation by God is correct as it can be falsified by finding evidence that it is incorrect. Again, such claims malign science. Beliefs do not qualify as science - showing an observation OR a repeatable test case of what you claim happens actually happening is science.
ForumLight 1 month ago
@ForumLight Using *your* logic, an astronomer who theorizes that large stars may end their life as a black hole, who uses mathematics to calculate how massive such a sun needs to be, who calculates what the effects of black holes would be on other objects, who searches the sky for such evidence and finds it, is not doing science.
According to you, he's only doing science if he sees a star turn into a black hole, or makes a star turn into a black hole.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 1 month ago
@ForumLight Pluto orbiting the sun is a religion! Since it's predicted orbital period is 248 years, and we've only know about it for 81, this is clearly a case where science becomes faith, right? I mean, it could well just fly off the solar system...
danoso0931 1 month ago
@entehrend See 4:07 onwards, it has your answer. But if you don't want to: by your logic, nobody will ever test a murder, because you can't re-kill the person. Likewise, what about the orbit of Pluto? Nobody ever saw Pluto finish an orbit... what if it doesn't even orbit the Sun? Your "argument" is based on a misunderstanding of "replication", which is addressed in the video.
"This whole video was wrong :(" that conclusion would be apropos to the video if the video would address Big Bang theory
StrikaAmaru 4 months ago
"What about the big bang theory, you can't even test that theory. And it can't be falsified or replicated."
Not when a Catholic Priest first gets a notion of alternate creation from the gravaty egnigma (with so much mass it either "needs to be expanding to resits gravity or collapsing under the weight of gravity" ) and found "proof" of expansion in Hubbles Red shift data (ignoring the equal to more massive blue shift depending where you looked
It's pure sillyness as Orbital motion iis common
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago in playlist Science 101
"wrong"
No, just as "Big Bang" or more correctly Super Atom Theory replaced Steady State Universe Theory by consensus in theorectical Physics as holes were punched in the fact that the Universe isn't constant "Big Bang" has to many holes in it from unequal distribution of matteer theoughut the Universe to the fact that "everything coming from 1 atom" breaks laws of Physics (nothing can be created or destroyed)
Enter "Null Physics" and "MUltiverse Bubble" theory as new contenders
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago in playlist Science 101
@entehrend yeah, that's why it's a theory, because it can't be proven... That kind of science is more complicated than you and I could comprehend, but it doesn't mean the methods are wrong... Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it's wrong... But I guess you can't conclude that it's right either...
eomerlotr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eomerlotr No a theory is a string of facts. Each fact is proven to be true and strung together to form a theory.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
@entehrend not everyone believes in the big bang, it has nothing to do with evolution.
besides on that note god exsists without reasion or purpose and without creation. by that logic so can everything else.
so your right and wrong ant that a bitch?
p.s. in time im sure we will be able to do tests proving that it might just be true. nothing is absolute or complete reguardless weather its right or wrong. theres always room to learn/know something new.
compendiumgravemind 1 month ago
@entehrend ever heard of the large hadron collider? go read a book before you ask a question like that.
TheArabassist 1 month ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
@entehrend The big bang theory is the result of an observation made most of a century ago that the universe is expanding.
The video in fact makes the exact opposite of the claim you're making. Listen from 4:12 to 4:50. The observations upon which the big bang is based are available to all. That's why it's accepted.
PatchesRips 1 month ago
why is science so cool?
thumbs up if u try to be a science whenever u can
LuizaXXI 4 months ago
Doing my brooklyn college homework!
ka22ho 4 months ago
How can 192 people dislike the scientific method?....I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
MonkeyBoy00000000000 4 months ago
Gallileos experiments were also the beginning of kinematics.
JamesThWilliams 5 months ago
Energy creates life, sustains life, created the universe, is eternal, energy must be person to create finite things from its infinite self, gosh energy already sounds a lot like God.
nazra7 5 months ago
@nazra7 eh I meant personal, not person lol
nazra7 5 months ago
@nazra7 Energy is the ability to do work. It doesn't create things.
And most important, energy is not "infinite", the total energy in the universe is probably zero.
InterbredRollmops 5 months ago
@InterbredRollmops I meant infinite in life span, not amount. Energy is eternal. I don't think energy is just the ability to do work but it does enables things to do work just has water enables us to stay hydrated. But energy itself is a substance in the universe, and I see it has just about every attribute that God has. Also, what caused the big bang? Energy. Energy created the universe apparently.
nazra7 5 months ago
@nazra7 "I don't think energy is just the ability to do work "
Yes, yes it is. The definition of energy is the ability of a system to do work. Nothing else.
"energy itself is a substance in the universe"
No, it is not. Energy must be in different forms (kinetic, potential, mass etc.). There is no such thing as "pure energy".
" Also, what caused the big bang? Energy."
That just doesn't make any sense. What kind of energy? How did it cause the Big Bang? How do you know this?
InterbredRollmops 5 months ago
@InterbredRollmops "The definition of energy is the ability of a system to do work. Nothing else."
Then that definition is misleading because apparently, energy is a substance that exists and is not dependent on what uses it. Take for example electricity, or nutrition.
"How do you know this?"
The theory says the big bang was caused when the 4 fundamental forces separated from each other, which required a lot of energy.
nazra7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "Then that definition is misleading"
I would rather say that you have totally misunderstood what energy is. You claim it to be a substance, which it isn't. That's like saying mass is a substance. If it were, then you could somehow remove it and have a pure form of it, which you can't (even in theory).
Also, we do not know ANYTHING about what caused the big bang, we can't even go back to the beginning of it, so where do you get your idea that the four forces once were one?
InterbredRollmops 4 months ago
@nazra7 "Take for example electricity, or nutrition." I assume by 'nutrition' you mean the energy we get from food. That's just chemical energy, the difference in separation of electric charges for two particular states. 'Electricity' likewise isn't energy itself, but the separation of charges in a circuit.
"The theory says the big bang was caused when the 4 fundamental forces separated from each other"
No. That wasn't the cause. It was a consequence of the nature of our universe.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
@Misterb0z "the difference in separation of electric charges for two particular states."
Yet this energy is containable, usable, and its independent of what uses. It can exist without something using it. Its an individual entity, a substance.
"No. That wasn't the cause. It was a consequence of the nature of our universe."
No it's not because that happened before the universe existed. And that event led up to the universe's existence, thus it was its cause.
nazra7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "It can exist without something using it." This is true of gravitational potential energy. Kinetic energy. Nuclear energy. What's your point? "Its an individual entity, a substance." No, it's not. Energy exists in different forms, and can be transferred from one form to another. "And that event led up to the universe's existence, thus it was its cause." Utterly wrong. Look it up: bit. ly/jg DoN
Misterb0z 4 months ago
Bible Logic is Better than your foolish scientific method,you only need to open your eyes and look,Do you see God? of coarse you don't! It only proves that God is not here, He's up there in heaven,exactly what the bible says..
robonique 5 months ago
You ignore those rules which are also followed, but which *aren't* acknowledged and which limit the value of science.
Scientists make certain assumptions about the nature of reality. They ignore evidence which conflicts either with either these assumptions, or with existing dogmas which were based on these assumptions. New paradigms are attacked irrationally and old dogmas are defended religiously. Scientists who break these rules risk losing their funding and soon learn to toe the line.
sallyamis 5 months ago
"As long as no other theories remotely match this consistency, Jane's theory is a fact and can be added to school textbooks." No theory is a fact. DERP
moatwog 5 months ago
I bloody love the scientific method!
Andreazor 5 months ago
@Andreazor If you love the scientific method, then you should consider being a Jew or Christian, since they invented it, based on creationist philosophy. See below and above posts.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 and if you love fireworks then you should become Chinese, because they invented them based on Chinese principles. Oh, hang on, no, that's a shit argument.
Misterb0z 5 months ago
@Misterb0z Even if that was the only defense for God, which it most certainly isn't, there would be almost no similarity. How often did the Chinese state something without trial and error that was 1000s of years ahead of science? How often did their holy books conflict with the conventional science of their time, add decades to to life and only finally get understood in the last century, with the National Institute of Health committing $5 million just this year for further study? Much more
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Oh, plenty of people swear by Chinese medicine, and their science easily rivalled that of the Greeks. And it was the Greeks who were thousands of years ahead of the Abrahamic tribes. There's nothing 'scientific' in the Bible that wasn't known by the Greeks. Post hoc matching of spurious verses to scientific understanding do not a holy book make.
Misterb0z 5 months ago
For those who want verification of comments below, Dr. Hannam gave a presentation on some at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history&started by a creationist).
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
He has degrees in physics & history from Oxford &London universities&a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge University&wrote “The Genesis of Science:How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” This has been reviewed positively by the New Scientist, Nature and others.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
P.S. to the below. Christians medieval and later invented or pioneered occam's razor, falsifiability, the modern scientific method, peer review and most fields of of science. Atheists should have the decency to thank Christianity which ALONE out of 1000s of cultures developed these as well as universities where they could be used extensively (not to mention freedom of religion). Also, the roots of these processes and significant science is often directly based on Bible's or science.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@potholer54 Sorry for late response. Been extremely busy. I commend you for your willingness to correct errors. Too many in all views aren't. Your 10 commandments for science are quite good too! Many were 1st used in the Bible! Very good point on rules too and good explanation of the scientific method.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
1) God usually gave evidence in the Bible before He asked for faith. The 1st use of the modern scientific method with a control group was by Daniel in ~600 BC (I have a peer reviewed paper on this).
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
"God usually gave evidence in the Bible before He asked for faith"
lol
People where afraid when God would speak to them straight from thee sky so one day they all got together and had a volunteer confront God to not be speaking to them straight from the sky all the time
GOd agreed and the Representative became known as a "Prophet"
Over time people becan to wonder if God existed or denied GOd did (Out of sight,out of mind)
Look at how quickly they lost faith when Moses "disapeared"
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
Evidence was not anathema to the medieval church (note that I disagree with Catholic theology almost as much as its half sister atheism, but we should give credit even to those we disagree with). Middle Ages Christians did not only use logic. They invented the modern scientific method LONG before Galileo. They were also pioneering much science and laying the foundations for modern science. See the link below on Dr. Hannam’s presentation.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
2) Makers and producers of products often tell you how they work since they designed them. Those who doubt them can test them with the scientific method. Conflating the legal system with manufacturers is not a correct comparison. Designers can tell you how things have worked due to their design purpose and observations and testing of that. I shouldn’t have to tell you that Christians consider God the Designer and Creator and so His claims about what He himself designed are not a legal thing.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
They are a Creator telling how things work. He tells those who doubt his claims that they can test them and science and history have done so extensively and the track record of Bible science and history is simply unrivaled in all history.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
The video misunderstands creation badly. In most areas, the actual evidence and data support creation science far more strongly than evolution. But, secularists asserted by prejudice that science can’t point to the supernatural (even though quite a few aspects of the supernatural are fully testable). Then courts said you can’t teach anything religious in schools for political reasons (perverting the constitution). When is it OK for politics to decide scientific questions???
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
These two movements directly attacked the foundation of science that science should follow WHEREVER the evidence leads, without banning any conclusions a priori and have caused DIRE ignorance about testable evidence.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
A similar thing would be to assert that democracy has no evidence of its benefits and ban all the evidence for it from schools and academia due to political reasons and keep millions in ignorance (something that has been done by many atheist regimes). When testable conclusions and testable evidence is being banned a priori, science has been abandoned and propaganda is in full control. This has indisputably happened in the area of creation science.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Proof is most definitely used in science. It's not hard to find many papers using this term. The History Channel series on geology "How the Earth Began" uses it countless times. Something being proved doesn't mean it’s infallible. It just means we’ve proven it beyond all reasonable doubt.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Last, science is an amazing tool, but it has limits&also sometimes makes false claims&even regresses (often due to the use of fallacies &a priori assumptions like the above).
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
2 examples:
1) Bible science told us that the ideal diet is fresh vegetarian food ~3,000 years ago. For decades vitamins have been trumpeted as very important. But, research is coming out now that shows that man made vitamins don’t help much at all and it’s the original fresh food and combinations of that that are far more healthful.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
2) Bible health principles which deal strongly with preventing sickness were ignored by most for millennia. ~70% of Egyptian medicines used dung, beer or both. Until the 18th century or so, most secular medicine was more likely to kill you than cure you.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Science = FUCK YEAH!
1234doawee 5 months ago
6:50 Beautiful, isn't it?
TheLockon00 6 months ago
@potholer54 Almost all of your comments about medieval thinkers are false. Dr. Hannam has degrees in physics & history from Oxford &London universities and a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge University and wrote “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” This has been reviewed very positively by major secular scientists & Almost organizations. See his presentation on it at the Royal Society.
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
TruthIsLife7 6 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 =Almost all of your comments about medieval thinkers are false.= I don't know what "comments" you are referring to, but if I got something wrong then of course I will correct it, as I have done previously. Please message the erroneous statement to me, along with whatever evidence you have that it is wrong. Thanks.
potholer54 6 months ago
But, the Bible’s health principles added decades of life to people in the past (+MANY other benefits) and even now, those who follow Bible health science live ~10+ years longer than others and this has been extensively documented by the NIH, NCI, National Geographic, Blue Zones and other secular organizations. See my playlist “Bible health science” (Video 1, 11:30+ and video #2 especially. See notes for peer reviewed resources.).
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Don't bother to point out mistakes in his videos. Potboiler (whose real name is Peter Hadley) is impervious to feedback. All his videos are full of blunders, but he's too insecure to accept feedback, let alone act on it.
sallyamis 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Richard Carrier refuted Hannam in his "How christianity was not the founder of modern science". :o)
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@Drgamedood Where? Jews like Daniel also did a good deal.
“Around 600 BC, Daniel of Judah conducted…the earliest recorded clinical trial. His trial compared the health effects of a vegetarian diet with those of a royal Babylonian diet over a 10-day period. The strengths of his study include the use of a contemporaneous control group, use of an independent assessor of outcome, and striking brevity in the published report.” Dr. David Grimes, wwwDOTncbiDOTnlmDOTnihDOTgov/pubmed/7501328
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthIsLife7 Look it up faggot.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
Kids are fed a whole bunch of lies in the classroom. Gaileo's "trial" was political, not religion or science based. Columbus wasn't a courageous adventurer, but pompous, stupid, and greedy. People never believed in a flat earth until about 100 years ago. Galileo never said we came from monkeys.
Science is definitely NOT objective. That is why macro-evolution is still taught.
sethsdl999 6 months ago
@sethsdl999 first off, a lot of old cultures believed in a flat earth floating on water, others not. So your claim is invalid. second, all that you say, is not in the field of science, but in the field of history. So you can only make the claim, history is definitely not obective. it doesn't say's anything about science or discoveries in the field of science. And macro-evolution?really? such a stupid term.
jakiedark 6 months ago
@jakiedark No old cultures did. This lie came up 100 years ago by citing heretics and backed it up by circular citing. Any historian of science will say this. Just Google "The myth of the Flat Earth" or Jeffery Burton Russel "Inventing the Flat Earth." As for the objectivity, it is impossible to go into science with a completely objective view. Look up Barbour's "Religion in an age of Science". It's available online. And how is macroevolution stupid when I learned it in a college Biology Class?
sethsdl999 6 months ago
@sethsdl999 because if find it a stupid term. evolution is evolution, done. you can discriminate between the two, but when you accept one of the two, you also accept the other. And i google flat earth, and if found that the old nors culture, chinese and japan ( to name a few) believed in a flat earth.
and sure a objective view is possible. And all big discoveries are dubbel checked, wich takes away any original opinion from the first scientist.
jakiedark 6 months ago
@sethsdl999 is sounds like a intresting book, and intresting for religious people. But i dont see the connection with your claim. Science is about discovering how things work, or how to improve things. Not to disprove any religious claims, if that is what your thinking. A lot of scientist don;t even bother with the question, will my findings prove or disprove religioun? they have a hypothesis, and they want to test it if it is true or not. thats all.
jakiedark 6 months ago
@jakiedark That doesn't mean science isn't completely objective. It's impossible to go into science or just about any field without subjectivity. We all bring in our suppositions and experiences into our fields. Just because people think they're being objective doesn't mean they are.
And LOT'S of scientists go out of their way to try and disprove religion. And, going in to science myself, I don't find them very convincing. There are too many holes and too many flaws.
sethsdl999 6 months ago
@sethsdl999 a lot of scientist dont disprove religion, but either disprove creatonist crap, or simply want to know the truth about something. also, please be precise about what field of science your talking about. There so many fields, i dont want to figure it out myself, takes forever. and since you already know it, it saves me time.
And in this video it is explained how science is objective and how personal views are taken out. Simply put, a lot of people look at it. go watch the video.
jakiedark 6 months ago
@jakiedark I did. I'm still not convinced. Why not read Barbour's article that I mentioned and see the subjectivity of science? And I've seen science point more towards to creation than the the farce of evolution. Scientist fail to bring up how unlikely it is and the fact that. It takes a lot more faith to believe in science than creation. In fact, people treat science as a religion (like Richard Dawkins). As for these comments, I've given my two cents and am done. No sense beating a dead horse.
sethsdl999 6 months ago
@sethsdl999 farce of evoltution? move towards creation? takes faith? unlikely? why do i got the feeling that the one beating a dead horse is me? there is a lot of evidence suporting the theorie of evolution, none that move towards creation. And also a lot proving and 'old' earth. None that goes toward, god or anyone else created it. And not my problem that some people see science as religion, there mistake.
well, thanks for your two cent and have a nice life.
jakiedark 6 months ago
@sethsdl999 I have to commend with you here (except for the creation part). Indeed, Richard Dawkins is a disgrace simply because he is using science as a method to debunk god, when in fact he's abusing it. Science has no applications to prove or debunk the supernatural due to the fact that all scientific inquiry are at best tentative & never absolutely proven. Whether or not you believe in the paranormal or the supernatural, it's irrelevant in science.
Science is a tool, not a motivation.
IceAges14Aces 6 months ago
@IceAges14Aces
"Science has no applications to prove or debunk the supernatural"
Ah yes it can
It disproves the false religious claims in the bible.
gorilla199uncensored 6 months ago
liiiiiiiike
CarlSagan6 7 months ago
I don't know about you,but we are guilty intill proven not guilty,or we wouldnt be in jail on hold first.Must be because of these creatards running the system :(
chucka59 7 months ago
(2) and if you read all my post- I did something that is very scientific- I did give you an explination of why muslims have been praying towards a stone for the last 1400 years. This explenation is also BETTER then the one the muslim give you- wich is.. "because mohammed did so".."and they dont really pray towards it/worships it"
Biblical IDEA - claims they shoudl be decived. I got 10000000 ppl who worship a stone claiming they dont. Put an image of Bush there, or betweeb and they all refuse
Punishment7 7 months ago
(4) So basically we have a stone- from space- here on earth- that shoudl be Satan. Wired but thats what logic out of the biblical idea provides us. Where would such stone be? Most likely desert- as jungle, water is LIFE giving, and ENERGY preserving.
Also according ot bible- this SATAN shall be the GREAT deciver. So if we find-
1000000000 people praying towards a stone from space- located preferebly in the desert we might have a supporing evidence. And we have 1400 years of KABA in Mecca
Punishment7 7 months ago
Since when evolution became a theory? Isn't it just a claim?
xtermeenator 7 months ago
@xtermeenator Just fucking google it...
gabrieloshiro 7 months ago
@xtermeenator Evolution is not a claim. It is a scientific theory which explains all the observations relating to it. It has no evidence against it and is used by medical researchers all the time when developing vaccines that have saved thousands of lives. It is based on the scientific method that is also responsible for example your clothes. It might be made of nylon that was developed using the scientific method. If it is cotton irrigation and harvesting, wool with shears and so on.
Oxlev 7 months ago
@xtermeenator it's neither, evolution is fact.
Ptondus 7 months ago
lol i look like john :p
MrJarth 7 months ago
No potholer54, in Science, we explain.
SlimeAmTheBest 7 months ago
Nice explanation. One little point though:
if Jane's hypothesis proves false, she can still write a paper about her research, as long as she is honest about her findings.
Tenocticatl 7 months ago
@Tenocticatl And if she works for the Discovery Institute she can claim that she is indeed correct and it was "Darwinist Thugs" who ganged up against her.
BlameRepublicans 7 months ago
@Tenocticatl She could write the paper, but it would be useless. Sure, a falsified hypothesis tells us something about the phenomenon or observation, but it doesn't expand our knowledge to any useful application. Working in research myself, I've found that many predictions I made turned out to be incorrect, but you have to keep working at it until you finally make that remarkable discovery, THEN your findings would be invaluable and publishing your data would be a lot easier.
Forlo12345 7 months ago
@Forlo12345 If you have 1 000 000 people who suddenly walks up and down the water everyday- claiming a devine reason for it- is it not scientific to ask if they have been bitten by a bug? Is called a hypothesis I belive?
Is it not scientific to ask if they have been bitten by an invisible force? It is non science if you cant falsify the hypothesis- but if you can then its very much scientific.
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 You're right, unfalsifiable hypotheses are useless and asserting their "truthfulness" without any research isn't science at all. However, I don't see how this comment relates to what I was saying about why making predictions and testing them is so important in research and, ultimately, the peer-review process. Could you please clarify, and this time without so many grammar and spelling errors? It is rather difficult to understand what you are trying to say.
Forlo12345 7 months ago
Lol-
I followed these 10 golden rules- I did like JANE...
And BIBLE is then TELLING THE TRUTH!!!
Bible is not a scientific book telling us of how the univers is made. Its a Holy book- telling us of spirits.
I "observerved" alot of irrational prayers- not very evelutionistic- and assumed they must have been bitten by a bug. No. Did not find such bug. Then went on to assume it was psycologic. No no such findings either. Then to assume an invisible force (ia. dark matter)..JACKPOT.
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 nonsense
gavhof 7 months ago
@gavhof How can you say nonsense? You have not even looked at the scientific evidence?
Not being able to recreate evelution- one have to conclude out of the evidence represented. Not being able to see an orbiting planet from a star far away - one have to use mirror effect to prove its there- (how the light wobbles). Simular we do with both dark matter and dark energy.
It then also make perfect sence to do simular method if plausible to the faith as well. Still JACKPOT when I tested
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 what are you talking about? how can using this effect show there is a god? we are talking about science here. NONSENSE
gavhof 7 months ago
@gavhof Im too talk about science- but I dont call it NONSENSE..
Now- just like in 4:44 . what if JANE did rub an oil lamp- and a gene came out- and the gene will not come back until 1000 years- does that make it none true? No it just make it Non scientific.
However you can make any hypothesis based on the story of the bible- and you will find jackpot any time. However GOD does not want a none beliver to find him unless he is a beliver threw FAITH-so science stops where bible begins.
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 well i am sure you are feeling very smug. you are welcome to live in your delusion if you like, despite the mountain of evidence that shows your holy book is a man made. the bible was truely seen as an historical document (and of course still is by some) until the advent of science and now you have to come out with nonsensical notions to support your belief. don't claim you have a scientific explanation for gods existence. you don't and you summed it up in your last sentence
gavhof 7 months ago
@gavhof In my last senctence I asked you a question which you failed to answer. Very typical for people who has made science a faith. Here is your problem: if the scientist told you all diamonds in this univers was made from a smaller diamond.. you woudl belive it - not having a clue how that was done.. that is what you do in church. Belive. Its faith.
If you can not apply a scientific method to the bible- then you cant science. Its got nothing to do with the bible. When I did: JACKPOT!!!
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 i have never made science my faith. if anything reason is my faith which you, by the very nature of your belief, have to through out the window. please spare me this jackpot argument. science is based on empirical evidence. i don't have the time, energy or interest in debating your contradictions and NONSENSE. BYE
gavhof 7 months ago
@gavhof Then dont comment on my claim by sharing your pure NONSENSE.
You contributed with nothing but-- nothing.. so I personally prefer you stfu . Nor did you even try to come up with anything exept arrogance.
Please - do stick to your words this time-- BYE
Punishment7 7 months ago
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 God is imaginary until proven otherwise. The bug you're referring to is called religion: It functions as a viral meme, and is detrimental to humans' critical thinking skills and intelectual integrity.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo Let me re-quote you: God is imaginary until proven otherwise. Dark matter is imaginary until proven other wise. So is an orbiting planet around a distant star.
How do we prove dark matter- or the orbiting planet around a distant star? By looking at how they sets off their invisible fingerprints on to the surrounding objects - fingerprints threw physics. Its called the mirroring effect I belive?
So can we prove invisible forces- why not also into the spiritual world? Idid. I found.
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 Dark matter and orbiting planets are real. We can see its effects, make predictions and confirm them. The measurements on them are objective and always produce the same results no matter who does the calculations or uses the equipment.
Your personal experience is, by definition, subjective and thus invalid as evidence. Sorry dude, the fact that you believe something doesn't make it true. Stop lying to yourself.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo I will use your arguments (but 2new words):
"GOD"/Dark matter and "orbiting planets/"spirits" are real. We can see its effects, make predictions and confirm them. The measurements on them are objective and always produce the same results no matter who does the calculations or uses the equipment."
Do you agree to this statement if we could do this to GOD and Spirits too? (its your statement after all).
I say I can, I dont say its a "personal experience". But I say the idea is valid.
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 Of course! If you could make predictions and repeat measurements objectively about god, I would accept its existence! The fact is... you haven't.
Everyone says they experienced god, and when asked about these experiences they normally are vague and easily mistakable for self-delusion or a lousy interpretation of natural events. Testimony is NOT evidence. So put away your wishful thinking and face the truth.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo Lets experiment- let`s make you provide the hypothesis & I the biblical info we have.
1. We cant meet GOD unless threw blind faith (whr science stops). SATAN however we can reveal but he prefers to stay hidden and give bad influence from a distance.
2. SATANS crime is claiming himselft to be god, wanting to be worshipped by humans.
3. SATAN is the OPPOSITE of GOD.
4.GOD=CREATOR of LIFE
5.SATAN can take ANY SHAPE he PREFER, & HATES HUMANS
What Universal SHAPE will SATAN prefer?
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Murdulo (2) take your time on that one. Be a detective- criminology is a branch in science. Come up with a hypothesis but remember- of all the objects in the entire universe - you should at least give us some direction in which we can find a "suspect" that shoudl be Satan..
Good luck-
Cant wait to hear your answer.
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 You haven't proved god and your first point is "we can't meet him unless..."?
To talk about its properties or conduct, first you have to demonstrate he exists. Same with satan, same with unicorns, etc.
I won't waste my time entertaining your illusions if you aren't up to the task of proving them true.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo "To talk about its properties or conduct, first you have to demonstrate he exists. Same with satan, same with unicorns, etc." -- this is not what EINSTEIN did. He proved the existence of "E" by showing more and more supporting evidence of it. Why cant this apply to proving the "unicorns" as well?
It is not illusions if its done scientificly is it? In scientific terms the bible is only an "idea". We can prove/disprove this idea if proper hypothesis are made. Logic- can provide:
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 Prove the existence of E? So energy wasn't discovered till Einstein? Stop making stupid analogies if you don't understand scientific theories. And again, provide an argument or evidence for the existence of god.
The bible is a book, so that's a no-go.
The fact that we don't know where did energy originally come from doesn't mean it was god. It means we don't know, and you should recognize that.
So, got anything or is it just blind wishful thinking on your behalf?
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo I wrote "E" cause I didnt have all the letter to write E=mc^2.
However- your right bible is a book So was newtons Principia as well. The book provides you with an idea. An idea that you can create a hypothesis out from. A valid one. And then you- and I and ohters test is. and we have a theory. This you know. You only reluctant to do so when the idea is towards the spiritual world. yet most science point in directions of other dimensions. An observation is valid even if its 400 year old
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 Relativity and newtonian physics are based on observations, and they are theories because they are explanatory, falsifiable, and confirmed throughout the times.
Saying "God exists" is an assertion, not an observation. There's no evidence in favour of it, so it's just wishful thinking. Furthermore, it has no explanatory power, it's not falsifiable and it doesn't have anything to back it up.
The bible, from verse 1, assumes god exists: It doesn't present the idea.
So you're wrong.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo My idea of the God we meet in the bible is also based purely on observations and old witnessaccounts. I made a hypothesis of who the satan would be- it became a rather rediculas one, but I found it to be true. I have 2/5 of people who worship a stone in the desert claiming they dont- even thou every human from begining of time- will claim that exactly what they do. I observe GOD by same principle as we today observe Dark matter or an exo planet- by how it impact the surroundings.
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Murdulo (2) Further- my hypothesis is explanatory (even more then the one we have today from muslims themselves), its falsible, and its confirmed threwout the times.
Lets construct new hypothesis (I did):
Muslims claim they DONT worship the black moon stone attached at Kabbah- yet they kiss it and claim it shall come to life on judgement day. Now if you place an image of G.W.Bush infront of a muslim- he will refuse to pray towards it- as "hes prayers then goes to that object".
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 That's not a hyphotesis, that's nonsense. What people worship or not worship has nothing to do with the existence of gods.
Again, give me evidence or arguments in favour of the existence of your god. If you don't have any of those two, then you're being dishonest with yourself and believe just because you want to believe. That's pathetic.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo No not nonsense. Worship has everything to do with the existence of gods. You just dont like the nature of how a god influence (threw prayer), yet the scientific evidence is there. Would a man worshipping Jesus- end up doing Jihad? Who influenced him?
I have given you evidence AND arguments: The black stone in a desert- worshipped by 1400000000 people. There is NO explenations for that action, except the one given by the biblical idea (of the deciver) That makes it explanatory.
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Punishment7 Lots of people worshipped zeus. Is that god real for you? Lots of people worship Xenu. Is he real for you? Cultists have, after prayer, decided to commit mass suicide in order to meet jesus behind the halley comet. Was that jesus talking to them? Please.
And you repeat your statements as if I haven't adressed them. Lots of people worship a stone, therefore my god, the bible, paradise, hell and souls exist? NON SEQUITUR at its best.
Stop embarrasing yourself. You have nothing.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo (2) Who is GOD in the biblical idea? (funny how many is less reluctant to this sentence if I add "that Einstein provided".)
Well the answer is that GOD is the "creator". "Creations" is all that is developed over the years. Or in scientific terms- anything that has preserved energy one way or the other. Both science/bible say "all is made of energy/GOD, and energy/GOD can not be created nor dissapear". AND: Math say 0+0=0 NEVER =1. Something cant come from NOTHING. 0+0=0 always.
Punishment7 7 months ago
@Murdulo (3) so if GOD is the Creator - the one who uses ENERGY- and SATAN is the opposite of GOD.. Satan shall then be the least created object in the universe. the one who has no energy.
Vakuume, stardust, or a rock in space is then plausible suspects. But then we also know that SATAN wants to be something and to be worshipped by mankind. That narrows it down to a stone. in space..
Then JESUS say he saw Satan fell down to earth supporting our hypotheis so far. Where would such stone be?
Punishment7 7 months ago
well it was hard but i finally managed to find a way to masterbate to this
14defleck2 8 months ago
@14defleck2 wow
Gyohdon 7 months ago
@14defleck2 Respect.
Murdulo 7 months ago
Creationism/Intelligent design tends to skip all the steps in scientific method and straight into school books, because it can't win any other way.
Evolution has passed the scientific method and that is why remains the backbone of biology today.
OptimalElement 8 months ago
I was never taught 'The Scientific Method' at school. In fact, having worked in a chemical laboratory testing/researching polyurethane the scientiic method was never mentioned. It was a case of, follow the method as close as one can and record the results.
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
I wish more people could see this video so they can understand the scientific method. It seems that for some reason people have not been taught it clearly enough in school and there are so many misunderstandings about how it works.
pseudonamed 8 months ago
Many aspects of evolution do not follow the scientific method. Men assume that for example dinosaurs evolved into birds or that some how fish magically started to walk on land.
JohnMuise 8 months ago
@JohnMuise You're retarded, you know that?
MagMag96 8 months ago
@JohnMuise
"Men assume that for example dinosaurs evolved into birds"
No, the theory predicts those things based on evidence, and subsequent tests have confirmed the predictions accuracy. You seem to still not understand how science works.
anglicantian 8 months ago
« Men assume that for example dinosaurs evolved into birds »
No, not assume: conclude, based on the available data, including the morphology of extant species of birds and reptiles, as well as the presence of various transitional forms between the clade and its derivatives.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« some how fish magically started to walk »
You know that science does not propose magic: that's the domain of religion. Science provides testable models for how it happens through *natural* processes. Best you learn what evolutionary theory is about before you come here demonstrating your ignorance of its claims.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@JohnMuise You are spectacularly stupid.
V0lk 8 months ago
excellent!! thank you for making this video available.
macmarty2025 9 months ago
What if you rub the genie lamp and get cold fusion?
edmonddantes64 9 months ago
Love you videos. Keep up the good work!
flamegod7 9 months ago
Was he not a Christian?
GodIsReal101 9 months ago
@GodIsReal101 and did he not go against the church?
cabot2jville2010 9 months ago
I really don't like how testing and falsifying one's own hypothesis are given negative connotations by having the scientist frown at them and smile at the confirmation (3:11 - 3:33). This notion creates incentive for faking data.
polyopulis 10 months ago
@polyopulis thats the point of peer review
Deadly699 9 months ago
"thats the point of peer review"
Yes,but "peer review" is a step before publication into a journal of Science Specifically
For example. the summary for policy makers is not a reserch paper being summited to a journal of science for peer review and publication
Neither is the UN 's IPCC a "Journal of Science" or their consensus agreement in the aforementioed summary to policy makers a verified and tested theory...at best its a prediction based on observance before years of testing
TheRealArchAngel 9 months ago
BBC give this man a series
MrDavidFitzgerald 10 months ago
How did this video on the scientific method turn into a religious debate? Insecure much?
CaLeDee 10 months ago
@CaLeDee And get this: The debate has been going on for over a year, just on this video alone.
Iceman9910 10 months ago
Galileo was a Christian (and still is) Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses let every word be established (O.T.) .Why should arcane symbols predict physical phenomena?MAGIC?
Sea dragons like DINOSAURS?God conceals himself from the wise and prudent and reveals himself to babes (proverb)The fact is God hides himself from you.God;s foolishness is wiser than man's Wisdom.Where are the NEW fossils?
MrNewkingjames 10 months ago
Galileo was a Christian (and still is) Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses let every word be established (O.T.) .Why should arcane symbols predict physical phenomena?MAGIC?
Sea dragons like DINOSAURS?God conceals himself from the wise and prudent and reveals himself to babes (proverb)The fact is God hides himself from you.God;s foolishness is wiser than man's Wisdom.
MrNewkingjames 10 months ago