Dark Matters - Ape Human Hybrid

For more Dark Matters, visit http://science.discovery.com/tv/dark-matters/#mkcpgn=ytsci1 | A Soviet scientist did a series of experiments to cross breed humans with apes.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• dark
• experiments
• twisted
• evil
• government
• test

[WaddyMuters]

When they say dramatized, does it mean the soviet scientist was one day in his lab and thought "What if I combiened apes with humans... nah that's stupid" and then they exaggerate all of this out of a brain fart like that? I bet there was a fat "LOL" next to the scribbles in his note book.

[dhyleck]

@percy U wanna talk about facts, lets talk about facts. Tell me is gravity a force according to Newton or is it the result of space-time curvature according to Einstein?

Is the universe made up of atoms or is it made up off dark energy?

What are the empirical evidences that the electron exists?

Does the the physical universe exist outside of our mind or is it nothing more than electrical stimuli?

[ge2298]

@jonybrown lol wtf, christian troll. ew

[devilpyro420]

planet of the apes

[dhyleck]

@percy The list of reasons is long, so I will be sending it to you in a personal message.

[percyth11]

@dhyleck Sure, tell me the reasons why I should believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

[dhyleck]

@percy I appreciate the tip but if u recall I mentioned that I believed that God transcends absolutely all universal limitations and restrictions therefore should I replace God with anything from within the universe then I would be contradicting my own premise. I can provide u with my reasons for believing in a God if u r interested. U only need but ask.

[percyth11]

@dhyleck Also ask yourself, if what I am suggesting even imply's the existence of a god. The trick is to finding out whether an argument is valid is to replace the subject with something else, In this instance the subject is your god, so replace it with say, a penguin; this technique helps remove bias and gives you a better method of forming sound/ valid arguments.

[percyth11]

@dhyleck So can you or can't you provide evidence? 'Signs' or Indicators to the truth of an assertion is evidence of an assertion...What are these 'signs'?

Now I must warn you, be very careful with what these 'signs' are, a lot of the time these arguments are arguments from ignorance. And are often non-sequiters, for example, if you point to things that 'appear' to be created, how do you know it was a god that created them? How do you know it is your specific god out of every other god?

[dhyleck]

@percy Actually this is not the basis for my belief in God. But u asked me to provide empirical proof that my God exists. I can't do that but what I can do is provide proofs empirical and otherwise for the "signs" of the existence of a God. There is a difference between the two.

[percyth11]

@dhyleck "To deny the existence of God simply on the basis of lack of empirical proof is equal to denying the existence of the universe."

If that is all you base your belief on then I think we are done here. This is a blatant argument from ignorance (can't disprove x therefore x is true), if you can't provide direct evidence for this god then you are simply making shit up to fill in the blanks (doesn't mean it is false but it means you have no reason to assert it being true or it being true).

[dhyleck]

@percy .... To deny the existence of God simply on the basis of lack of empirical proof is equal to denying the existence of the universe. There are other ways of acquiring knowledge than pure empiricism. Just because something has no empirical proof doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. To ask me for empirical proof of God is to assume that God is a quantifiable entity. Even though I clearly mentioned that I believe God lies outside of the universe & its dimensions.