I like to project an air of mystery. 'Ello. :)

Also, YouTube profiles are by no means conducive to meaningful conversation. Haha.

...Perhaps the differences between true science and theism stem from the fact that science is built from a logical basis, and theism is built from a contrived set of blind beliefs that were created by the human mind in order to cope with its own ignorance of the dynamics of the world around it...and from its need to cope with harsh realities that negated the "specialness" and "uniqueness" of the human form itself.

Good work, NaoTio!
It's nice to see that intelligent discussion and reason still exist out there.

...Note also that even the concepts present in quantum field theory are derived from mathematical reasoning and concepts derived from the perceivable universe around us...as well as the forces of that universe (which ARE observable). In addition, all probable, yet not absolute, evidence that remains is left up to what we deem...probabilities. In the case of quantum mechanics, the superpositions of probable states at a given point in N-dimensional space-time DEFINES the sum state. Thus, we DO NOT arbitrarily choose one without being able to observe it. Once we observe it, we say that the wavefunction collapses to a clearly defined state. In other words, once we can perceive something, we can finally say that we know what it looks like. Until then, we can only define what it is most likely to be by reasoning...

...In other words, we oppose the contrivance of mechanisms/agents/causes that are in direct opposition from the dynamics of the universe that have been proven to be true through evidence gleaned from experimentation. Within that "model" of the universe, there are certain aspects that have not YET been completely explained by the evidence which we have already found. However, through mathematical reasoning, we can usually eliminate those causes/mechanisms that are impossible, thus leaving only the probable and improbable within the realm of the "possible". This is in absolute contrast to the theist view, which utilizes ZERO evidence of a deity (other than the basic "blind faith"), and refutes ANY evidence found through scientific study or experimentation. Essentially, we believe in a reality that we can perceive with our senses...or with reasoning and a logic model derived from the perceivable universe around us...

I'd like to help clear up what seems to be the source of so much conflict between the abstract models of science and the various theological perspectives...

To anyone that does not understand atheism/agnosticism and tends to favor theologically-based explanations, I believe I can summarize our perspective quite simply. We favor a position that utilizes logic and reasoning as applied to the evidence of the physical universe around us to explain the processes that comprise "reality" and the dynamics therein...

(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1872)
p. 293
"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Is Darwin saying here that his the evidence does not support his claims?There are many other paragraphs like this in his book so I can give more examples if you wish.
The true history of Man and Earth has been systematically hidden from us all by the Adepts of the Mystery Schools for thousands of years.Careful examination and research of their teachings will show we have all been purposefully misled into fighting against each other and distracted from our true Divinity and freedom.

The other major gripe I have with sci-com is they're still trying to pacify and cater to the religious nuts, they're too skittish about hurting feelings or being disrespectful. They present something and religious nuts wig out, so sci-com starts backing away, or tripping over endless debates when what they should do is step up strong and hard, put the facts on the table and push for people that delusional to be institutionalized and deprogrammed, and stop being candyasses about reality. Evolution is a reality here and now. Tough shit if you don't want to accept it, be stupid, and then move on with it and stop wasting time trying to argue with people whose brain cell short circuits if they have to read more than 3 sentences. In short, sci-com should just stop putting up with the religious nonsense and step up the agenda to have these people treated appropritately, they suffer from brainwashing and delusion...they need help, not debating with.

pt2 If they'd explain it properly, the layman would have an easier time comprehending it. The assets were already there...and the end result is the allowable adaptation. Because the markings are there, the cheeta can move about on the sly. Because of the monkey's agility, it just can get up the tree. Logically sound. The way they describe things does make it sound as if the animal decreed a thing for a particular ability...it doesn't help matters, even though they're explaining it in a different context amongst themselves, to help educate the layman who thinks in terms of something created by something. The smell of competition will motivate them to lean toward an all powerful entity than the dumb animal creating it for itself for some purpose.

I have one for you. What bothers me about the scientific community as a whole is the use of various terminology that to them has one context but to the layman, something else entirely. Main example, when explaining or describing biological and evolutionary behaviors or events, the sci-com presents it in a particularly flawed way for the layman who takes it literally. The monkey is agile and quick because it needs to get up the tree faster, or the cheeta has this sort of marking to allow it to about undetected. Sci-com understands what it means, but to the layman, and particularly Creationists who are already stupid as rocks, it's backwards and suggests that the monkey needed to get up the tree so developed said agility, or the cheeta needed to move about in stealth so developed its markings. Logically it makes no sense, and in comparison to their god notions of a magic wand waving to give the animals these assets, god's going to win.

Requests/suggestions for future videos:
- Dualism, general discussion or debunking. Specific theory would be nice, but certainly not necessary
- Ethics, discussion of your on moral system, or debunking of particular systems
- and lastly a good old fashioned post about things that annoy you with the world of ours.

These are only suggestions, thus it is fine if you choose not to pursue any of the above