@GreedyCapybara7 LOL, so its a fact like gravity, motion, etc? Interesting
how they always associate words like “suggests, imagine, suppose” with
evolution while presenting it. That don’t sound like a fact to me. Hmm I
hate stupid could that mean the evolutionist fall into this category? Your
logic is retarded and your suggestion that Americans are stupid is also
noted.
@GreedyCapybara7 Are you listening to what I am saying here? You can throw
them in all the same box if you want to but they don’t go together. Like I
said before the geologic column where they base this off of is an imaginary
assumption and has nothing to do with time or transitions.
@MaximusMcc none, the platypus is a monotreme (an egg laying mammal) it has milk ducts but no nipples, lays leathery eggs like a reptile, and has a leathery beak similar to all modern monotremes…it is not a rodent like a beaver because it lacks a rodent hip, it is not a snake because it is a mammal and not a duck for the same reason.
@MaximusMcc For me following my “gut feeling” is a thing of the past, we do not date by strata and as a Biologist I can only follow evidence… I think also you are mistaking a journalist for a scientific journalist, they are used in order to convey complicated scientific principals to the masses which lack such an education…all I can do if throw complex terms, that I would then have to explain and why they matter…I guess I could try to explain if you want…but you’ll have to let me know.
@MaximusMcc you seem very fixed on your little belief here, however all I can do is tell you that you are misinformed and why. I assume you mean radiometric dating, I have done many calibration tests myself from such rocks (not technically my field, but a Major in Ancient History gets you into other departments), and I can tell you that depending on what rocks you are looking at, the age of said rock (of which is not known until after testing) and where they are found it can be very accurate.
@GreedyCapybara7 My point of view don’t matter here the facts do and so does the evidence. Put a whale next to the wolf or any creature with 4 legs that are in the fossil record. There is the difference buddy, its NOT THAT HARD!
@MaximusMcc no matter how much you push the geologic column does not change the fact that you are wrong and are using out of date arguments. That’s not how we classify animals and you know that, once again you are performing a logical falsity, in which you take ones argument to extreme and knowingly inaccurate measures to mock the result.
@MaximusMcc no, unlike a scientist a scientific journalist does not make experiments or assess data, he/she/it is only given evidence and told to phrase it in such a way that it makes sense to the populous.
@MaximusMcc as I stated before I had already seen your video, it is an old, bad and previously debunked argument, I’ve been through this before and would prefer I not have to say it again.
@GreedyCapybara7 You still have given me not source that debunks the video that I watch the science experiment all the way though. BTW the people that did the experiment are not flood proponents.
@GreedyCapybara7 LOL I have people with PHD’s Masters and bachelors work for me and most of them are more worthless than tits on a bore hog! Don’t try to dazzle me with your PHD that dont impress me. Reason impresses me, facts impress me , evidence impresses me.
@MaximusMcc I was referring to the Creationist sources not sighting theirs not the other way around, most scientific sources sight where they got their information from, primarily from other papers on the subject or from their own experimentation, I am sure you will be hard pressed to find a scientific source that does not list their findings I am only spouting high school Biology in danger of becoming over complicated, if you want to look it up I recommend Wikipedia for a start.
@MaximusMcc doesn’t matter what they support if they are wrong; for example Darwin’s observations though he supported evolution were largely guess work and not relied upon by modern science because a lot is wrong. The simple explanation is that if something can be explained perfectly soundly, without guess work or magic then that explanation is much more likely.
@GreedyCapybara7 Are you implying that the moon is always inside earths magnetic field? If life surviving were simple why have we not observed it elsewhere in the universe?
@MaximusMcc I recommend you look at the fossils, all three even look like whales, I was never going to ask you to have any education when it comes to identifying fossils, so I chose the three best examples of whales that illustrated my point and looked the part. You are performing the same logical falsity again, it’s not the same as putting those different organisms into the same genus, rather three species of whale into the whale genus, indoctrination only works with religion, evolution is not.
@MaximusMcc oh dear…and thus we have come full circle -you put forward and argument -I tell why you are wrong -you repeat your argument -I further my point -you question why the subject has been changed and put forward your original argument
@MaximusMcc no, they replicated the results they needed, that’s not the same as performing an experiment. There is no evidence of any sort of global flood, nor is there enough water on the planet frozen or otherwise to constitute such a disaster, it’s any body of water that can lay down sediment. And I’m not going to get into Mt St. Helens, hopefully your just smart enough to figure that out.
@GreedyCapybara7 Evolution is want to be science and that is all. Creation Science ID science is where we learn real science. We learn about testing hypothesis and what it really means to be a critical free thinker. How not to confuse one creature with another, we have the finest scientist the world has to offer willing to stand for the truth even in the face of loosing their jobs for not supporting falsehoods. You have never done anything remotely that courageous,go lay an egg
@MaximusMcc I’ll rephrase that then, simpler, as in a natural explanation that is scientificly sound (i.e. evolution) should be given authority over magic with no testable evidence. I assure you I am not here to mislead you, I only wanted to correct you on a simple error that you made. However I am interested in your “step 2”, you seem to be hinting that Biology is a religion, is this correct or am I misreading?
@MaximusMcc no, all radiometric dating is the extrapolation of a known decay rate, I will try to keep it simple. For example if you have some chocolate in the fridge and every day you eat one piece, then if you have the original bar to compare it to then you can tell how many days you’ve had the chocolate in the fridge by counting how many pieces are missing. Now if you have 1,000 and you take a piece from each every day then you have corroboration, thus adding accuracy to your results.
@GreedyCapybara7 You are definitely misreading. This is nothing new you cannot even recognize a whale with the definition straight out of the dictionary. You are not misleading me, you are misleading yourself. Biology is a part of Creation and ID science and is accurate according to its “design” and “function”. It is intelligible and readable and we understand it. That is why we can make medicines to help people because in order to make medicine it has to be intelligible.
@MaximusMcc what? evolution is a theory, not a religion you cannot get to one from the other, and I never mentioned snake penis, only that primates were origionaly classified by that feature until we started discovering fossils and discovered that we could not use that characteristic any more.
@GreedyCapybara7 LOL @ peer review. These guys are PAID to look at the evidence and they can be more convinced if the PAY is bigger! Remember when the peer reviewed study of eggs revealed they were bad for humans and then another peer reviewed finding said they were good for you? This is one of MILLIONS of peer reviewed articles and pseudo science. Peer review, what a joke!
@MaximusMcc No, you said that they weren’t whales, when they all are, both by your definition and the taxonomic one. On a side note, do you know what a logical falsity is? If so where have I committed one?
@MaximusMcc Correct, both studies looked at different aspects of the human body. I can honestly tell you done several reviews myself that our pay does not go up or down depending on weather we improve the experiment, or comment, or sight the paper…how could it the process is almost silent.
@MaximusMcc yes, as I am a scientist (more specificity a Biologist) and can only act upon what can be tested (i.e. the natural world) and being Agnostic cannot comment per my philosophy on the supernatural world that may / may not exist.
@MaximusMcc you questioned my education, I told you my education…what part of that is meant to impress you? Although I am confused that you say evidence impress you, yet you support ID an invalid argument, not backed up by any facts, evidence and no applications supplying funding and relies on the donations of the public
@MaximusMcc Science is testable, ID is not Science requires evidence, ID cannot provide any and lies outside science need I go on? Our jobs are not hinging on our observations, if something is tested and observed then we are threatened with losing our jobs and credibility if we do not report it and it is found later. Beyond that, “go lay an egg”, explain I’m not up to all you yanks slang?
@MaximusMcc the rate of decay is not assumed, it’s only an extrapolation on the known rate of decay (which we can get after any short period and draw back), we know from the structure of an atom that nothing can effect this rate of decay short of a particle accelerator.
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc I have yet to mock you, if I have I am sorry and please show me where I have done this.You described a whale as “Any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened.”All four animals I described fit into this category…sorry, at least don’t assume that I’m wrong before doing any research for yourself.
[..YouTube..] I have yet to mock you, if I have I am sorry and please show me where I have done this.You described a whale as “Any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened.”All four animals I described fit into this category…sorry, at least don’t assume that I’m wrong before doing any research for yourself.
I have yet to mock you, if I have I am sorry and please show me where I have done this.You described a whale as “Any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened.”All four animals I described fit into this category…sorry, at least don’t assume that I’m wrong before doing any research for yourself.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 ID is not testable? Your joking right? This is all science is, there are intelligent patterns in nature that are testable because of the structure of the physical world around us. You can identify intelligence everywhere in nature-ID. Your job hinges on a lie, endorsing a lie, promoting a lie at all costs no matter what. You are not a free thinker and probably never will be sadly. Go lay an egg = chicken brain
[..YouTube..] ID is not testable? Your joking right? This is all science is, there are intelligent patterns in nature that are testable because of the structure of the physical world around us. You can identify intelligence everywhere in nature-ID. Your job hinges on a lie, endorsing a lie, promoting a lie at all costs no matter what. You are not a free thinker and probably never will be sadly. Go lay an egg = chicken brain
ID is not testable? Your joking right? This is all science is, there are intelligent patterns in nature that are testable because of the structure of the physical world around us. You can identify intelligence everywhere in nature-ID. Your job hinges on a lie, endorsing a lie, promoting a lie at all costs no matter what. You are not a free thinker and probably never will be sadly. Go lay an egg = chicken brain
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc No, I’m not joking, when something is supernatural it is aceo-facto untestable, however I am nothing if not curious…could you give me an example of evidence for ID.I am a scientist, my job hinges on being a free thinker, this does not mean dogma or faith but following the evidence regardless of my own personal preferences.On another side note, “chicken brain”…explain what it means please, still not up on you yanks slang?
[..YouTube..] No, I’m not joking, when something is supernatural it is aceo-facto untestable, however I am nothing if not curious…could you give me an example of evidence for ID.I am a scientist, my job hinges on being a free thinker, this does not mean dogma or faith but following the evidence regardless of my own personal preferences.On another side note, “chicken brain”…explain what it means please, still not up on you yanks slang?
No, I’m not joking, when something is supernatural it is aceo-facto untestable, however I am nothing if not curious…could you give me an example of evidence for ID.I am a scientist, my job hinges on being a free thinker, this does not mean dogma or faith but following the evidence regardless of my own personal preferences.On another side note, “chicken brain”…explain what it means please, still not up on you yanks slang?
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Apparently you are not picking up that I believe that you are totally indoctrinated. Your willingness to outright lie is proof enough for me. I have been indoctrinated with 1st religion, rejected it and 2nd embraced evolution & atheism with open arms now 3rd I am on my own. Not affiliated with either just letting the evidence lead me wherever it takes me. Its a hard thing to swallow when you are proved wrong but liberating at the same time, try it I dare you!
[..YouTube..] Apparently you are not picking up that I believe that you are totally indoctrinated. Your willingness to outright lie is proof enough for me. I have been indoctrinated with 1st religion, rejected it and 2nd embraced evolution & atheism with open arms now 3rd I am on my own. Not affiliated with either just letting the evidence lead me wherever it takes me. Its a hard thing to swallow when you are proved wrong but liberating at the same time, try it I dare you!
Apparently you are not picking up that I believe that you are totally indoctrinated. Your willingness to outright lie is proof enough for me. I have been indoctrinated with 1st religion, rejected it and 2nd embraced evolution & atheism with open arms now 3rd I am on my own. Not affiliated with either just letting the evidence lead me wherever it takes me. Its a hard thing to swallow when you are proved wrong but liberating at the same time, try it I dare you!
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc it is, short of firing particles at isotopes approaching the speed of light or a gama-ray burst there if literally nothing that can effect the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes, otherwise we could use it to naturalise radioactive waste.Here in Australia if such a thing did exist, we would be all over it
[..YouTube..] it is, short of firing particles at isotopes approaching the speed of light or a gama-ray burst there if literally nothing that can effect the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes, otherwise we could use it to naturalise radioactive waste.Here in Australia if such a thing did exist, we would be all over it
it is, short of firing particles at isotopes approaching the speed of light or a gama-ray burst there if literally nothing that can effect the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes, otherwise we could use it to naturalise radioactive waste.Here in Australia if such a thing did exist, we would be all over it
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 lol, ur a crack pot. You think like a cop, the law only the law and there is nothing else but THE LAW!. You can only act upon whats scientifically tested, there’s another lie. I can think of 5 things right off the bat that you do that have nothing to do with science. Let see if you can guess them or are you going to lie some more?
[..YouTube..] lol, ur a crack pot. You think like a cop, the law only the law and there is nothing else but THE LAW!. You can only act upon whats scientifically tested, there’s another lie. I can think of 5 things right off the bat that you do that have nothing to do with science. Let see if you can guess them or are you going to lie some more?
lol, ur a crack pot. You think like a cop, the law only the law and there is nothing else but THE LAW!. You can only act upon whats scientifically tested, there’s another lie. I can think of 5 things right off the bat that you do that have nothing to do with science. Let see if you can guess them or are you going to lie some more?
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Whale:any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened. DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ALL OF THE CREATURES YOU DESCRIBED? NO!
[..YouTube..] Whale:any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened. DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ALL OF THE CREATURES YOU DESCRIBED? NO!
Whale:any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened. DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ALL OF THE CREATURES YOU DESCRIBED? NO!
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc Excuse me, Abiogenesis is simple Biochemistry, if you think it is incorrect then put up a case against it, show which of the steps is impossible.It is not spontaneous generation, rather the progression of organic molecules to what we recognise today as simple life.
[..YouTube..] Excuse me, Abiogenesis is simple Biochemistry, if you think it is incorrect then put up a case against it, show which of the steps is impossible.It is not spontaneous generation, rather the progression of organic molecules to what we recognise today as simple life.
Excuse me, Abiogenesis is simple Biochemistry, if you think it is incorrect then put up a case against it, show which of the steps is impossible.It is not spontaneous generation, rather the progression of organic molecules to what we recognise today as simple life.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 I already answered that question above, getting the chemicals in the first place. How did you chemicals appear? Now I would love to hear your answer to that one!
[..YouTube..] I already answered that question above, getting the chemicals in the first place. How did you chemicals appear? Now I would love to hear your answer to that one!
I already answered that question above, getting the chemicals in the first place. How did you chemicals appear? Now I would love to hear your answer to that one!
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc again, I have yet to lie, if I have please show where I have and I will correct it otherwise don’t make such allegations without evidence.Honestly I cannot think of anything I have done that has nothing to do with science and I can only act as a scientist on testable, conferable evidence
[..YouTube..] again, I have yet to lie, if I have please show where I have and I will correct it otherwise don’t make such allegations without evidence.Honestly I cannot think of anything I have done that has nothing to do with science and I can only act as a scientist on testable, conferable evidence
again, I have yet to lie, if I have please show where I have and I will correct it otherwise don’t make such allegations without evidence.Honestly I cannot think of anything I have done that has nothing to do with science and I can only act as a scientist on testable, conferable evidence
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc nowhere is evolution and Atheism connected, in fact most Biologists are Christian to veering degrees, simply because I am non-theist is not an indication of the scientific community.Other than that I cannot tell what you are actually saying, please repeat using proper grammar and English so I can rebut.
[..YouTube..] nowhere is evolution and Atheism connected, in fact most Biologists are Christian to veering degrees, simply because I am non-theist is not an indication of the scientific community.Other than that I cannot tell what you are actually saying, please repeat using proper grammar and English so I can rebut.
nowhere is evolution and Atheism connected, in fact most Biologists are Christian to veering degrees, simply because I am non-theist is not an indication of the scientific community.Other than that I cannot tell what you are actually saying, please repeat using proper grammar and English so I can rebut.
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc not nobody, there are always people reviewing old work to see where an experiment could have gone wrong, but for the most part the “soul” hypothesis has gone the same way as the “flat earth” hypothesis, “elemental theory” and “Newtonian Gravity”.Other than that something untestable does not mean that it does not exist, for example there may or may not be a soul in humans/ animals/ all life, but until evidence appears to point to such a conclusion then we cannot say it’s true.
[..YouTube..] not nobody, there are always people reviewing old work to see where an experiment could have gone wrong, but for the most part the “soul” hypothesis has gone the same way as the “flat earth” hypothesis, “elemental theory” and “Newtonian Gravity”.Other than that something untestable does not mean that it does not exist, for example there may or may not be a soul in humans/ animals/ all life, but until evidence appears to point to such a conclusion then we cannot say it’s true.
not nobody, there are always people reviewing old work to see where an experiment could have gone wrong, but for the most part the “soul” hypothesis has gone the same way as the “flat earth” hypothesis, “elemental theory” and “Newtonian Gravity”.Other than that something untestable does not mean that it does not exist, for example there may or may not be a soul in humans/ animals/ all life, but until evidence appears to point to such a conclusion then we cannot say it’s true.
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc If your talking about getting organic chemicals from non-oganic chemicals that is actually the easy bit, plants do this with CO2 and H2O (both non-organic)to make glucose-a (organic), this happens in almost any polar solution such as water and some oils when carbon in any state, N2 and oxygen + hydrogen either as water of as a gas…getting organic molecules is quick and relatively easy getting life from this is the hard part.
[..YouTube..] If your talking about getting organic chemicals from non-oganic chemicals that is actually the easy bit, plants do this with CO2 and H2O (both non-organic)to make glucose-a (organic), this happens in almost any polar solution such as water and some oils when carbon in any state, N2 and oxygen + hydrogen either as water of as a gas…getting organic molecules is quick and relatively easy getting life from this is the hard part.
If your talking about getting organic chemicals from non-oganic chemicals that is actually the easy bit, plants do this with CO2 and H2O (both non-organic)to make glucose-a (organic), this happens in almost any polar solution such as water and some oils when carbon in any state, N2 and oxygen + hydrogen either as water of as a gas…getting organic molecules is quick and relatively easy getting life from this is the hard part.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 This is still pseudo science no matter how you slice the cheese. There is too many variables and there are too many assumptions that come into play. I am not doubting that these are the readings that you get from radiometric dating, the rate of decay but comparing 2 isotopes and firing particles at one to make it match the other ones condition then saying give or take a couple million years is hardly science observable and tested.
in teh Quran: Ask if ye know not! It is mentioned in the Quran in two pclaes: 16:43 and 21:7.This rule means that there is no place for our opinion in Islam, there is only Quran, Sunnah and the words of the followers of the Remembrance i.e. the scholars. And if it was otherwise Islam would turn into that wich christianity and judaism are now, that were corrupted by people following ther desires.As for our subject, one thing can be said here unequivocally there is no such thing as modern Islam . There is Islam as it was when it was brought by the Prophet (peace be upon him) more than 1400 years ago. Muslims should neither conform to the year 2010 nor 2100.As for the words tha muslims hould be identified as such by the dress these words contradict the words of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) who said: The one who imitates a people (a nation) is one of them . (Abu Dawud, al-Libas 4031; classed as sahih by Sheikh Albani in Sunan Abu DAwud 3401). And Prophet called muslims not to imitate the disbelievers and be different from them in clothes, behavious and everything else. So the one who sais that muslims should blend into the modern society meaning the west, has gone astray from the way of the Messenger of Allah and our righteous predecessors (salaf salih).As for our new sisters or those who are going to embrace Islam we shouldn’t corrupt the basics of our religion just to make people like it. If Alla decides to open someone’s heart for Islam he will embrace it with all its rules and principles, and women’s modest clothing won’t deter him or her. And if Allah has sealed someone’s heart for Islam he won’t accept it no matter how hard you try to beautify it. Allah verily sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He will. (35:8)I don’t know whether you are a muslim or not because you didn’t give an islamic salam. But if you are a muslim i tell you jazzakumuLlahu khairon for nasihat. And if you’re not muslim i advice you learn about the basics of this religion anf then you’ll see how beautiful it is and question like modest clothing won’t bother you.АльхамдулиЛлях Аллах подарил нам прекрасную религию, совершенную во всем, и одно из ее чудес и самых главных правил, именно из-за которого во многом сохраняется ее первозданность и истинность до сегодняшнего дня, в отличие от других религий, который были искажены это правило, которое Аллах прописал в Коране: А если вы не знаете, то спросите обладающих знанием. Это упоминается в Коране в двух местах: 16:43 и 21:7.Это правило означает, что в Исламе нет нашего мнения, есть только Коран, Сунна и слова обладающих напоминанием то есть ученых. А если бы было иначе то Ислам превратился бы в то, что сегодня представляют из себя христианство и иудаизм, которые были искажены людьми по их страстям.Что касается этой темы, то тут можно сказать однозначно нет никакого современного Ислама . Есть Ислам в том виде, в котором он пришел с Пророком (да благословит его Аллах и приветствует) более чем 1400 лет назад. Мусульмане не должны подстраиваться ни под 2010 год, ни под 2100, ни под какой.Что касается слов, что мусульмане должны быть идентифицированы как таковые не из-за одежды, то эти слова противоречат словам Посланника Аллаха (да благословит его Аллах и приветствует), который сказал: Кто уподобился какому-то народу, тот один из них”. (Абу Давуд, аль-Либаас 4031; назван сахих шейхом Альбани в Сунан Абу Давуд 3401) И Пророк призвал мусульман не подражать неверным и отличаться от них в одежде, поведении и во всем остальном. Так что тот, кто говорит, что мусульмане должны подстроиться под образ жизни современного общества , имея ввиду запад, тот отошел от того, на чем был Пророк Аллаха и наши праведные предшественники.Что касается новых сестер или тех, кто только собирается принять Ислам, то мы не должны искажать основы религии только ради того, чтобы кому-то это понравилось. Если Аллах решил открыть кому-то сердце для Ислама, то он примет его со всеми его правилами и установками, и закрытая одежда мусульманок его не отпугнет. А если Аллах запечатал чье-то сердце для Ислама, то как бы вы ни приукрашали нашу религию, он все равно его не примет. abАллах, воистину, оставляет в заблуждении, кого пожелает, и наставляет на правильный путь, кого пожелаетbb (35:8)Я не знаю, мусульманка вы или нет, потому что вы не дали исламского приветствия, но если вы мусульманка, то я скажу вам джазакумуЛлаху хайран за насыхат. А если вы немусульманка, то я посоветую вам изучить основы этой религии, и тогда вы увидите, насколько она прекрасна, и такие вопросы как закрытая одежда не будут вас волновать.
[..YouTube..] This is still pseudo science no matter how you slice the cheese. There is too many variables and there are too many assumptions that come into play. I am not doubting that these are the readings that you get from radiometric dating, the rate of decay but comparing 2 isotopes and firing particles at one to make it match the other ones condition then saying give or take a couple million years is hardly science observable and tested.
This is still pseudo science no matter how you slice the cheese. There is too many variables and there are too many assumptions that come into play. I am not doubting that these are the readings that you get from radiometric dating, the rate of decay but comparing 2 isotopes and firing particles at one to make it match the other ones condition then saying give or take a couple million years is hardly science observable and tested.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Dancing with words is something that I am not enthused about and I am not about to go into a detailed conversation about mockery and how it works. Cetacea: “order of marine mammals containing whales,” 1830, Mod.L., from L. cetus, from Gk. ketos “a whale.” Hence cetology “the study of whales,” first attested 1851 in “Moby Dick.”Ambulocetus don’t look like Moby Dick. Rodhocetus looks more like Ambulocetus but still a different creature altogether.No ancestor proof
[..YouTube..] Dancing with words is something that I am not enthused about and I am not about to go into a detailed conversation about mockery and how it works. Cetacea: “order of marine mammals containing whales,” 1830, Mod.L., from L. cetus, from Gk. ketos “a whale.” Hence cetology “the study of whales,” first attested 1851 in “Moby Dick.”Ambulocetus don’t look like Moby Dick. Rodhocetus looks more like Ambulocetus but still a different creature altogether.No ancestor proof
Dancing with words is something that I am not enthused about and I am not about to go into a detailed conversation about mockery and how it works. Cetacea: “order of marine mammals containing whales,” 1830, Mod.L., from L. cetus, from Gk. ketos “a whale.” Hence cetology “the study of whales,” first attested 1851 in “Moby Dick.”Ambulocetus don’t look like Moby Dick. Rodhocetus looks more like Ambulocetus but still a different creature altogether.No ancestor proof
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Never-mind about the chicken brain its stale. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Everything is ID take your pick molecules, planets suns and stars, systems, adaptation etc we can detect design in everything.
[..YouTube..] Never-mind about the chicken brain its stale. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Everything is ID take your pick molecules, planets suns and stars, systems, adaptation etc we can detect design in everything.
Never-mind about the chicken brain its stale. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Everything is ID take your pick molecules, planets suns and stars, systems, adaptation etc we can detect design in everything.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Funny that I agree with Richard Dawkins on the one. Evolution is the only game in town for atheist so endorsing it is imperative. I am sure the culture gap has a bearing on what is understood by me. I will try to be more sensitive linguistically and in grammar. Some of my hero’s believe in Evolution like William Lane Craig that does not mean that I agree with him. I see too much evidence against evolution therefore I reject it. I can go into them if you like.
[..YouTube..] Funny that I agree with Richard Dawkins on the one. Evolution is the only game in town for atheist so endorsing it is imperative. I am sure the culture gap has a bearing on what is understood by me. I will try to be more sensitive linguistically and in grammar. Some of my hero’s believe in Evolution like William Lane Craig that does not mean that I agree with him. I see too much evidence against evolution therefore I reject it. I can go into them if you like.
Funny that I agree with Richard Dawkins on the one. Evolution is the only game in town for atheist so endorsing it is imperative. I am sure the culture gap has a bearing on what is understood by me. I will try to be more sensitive linguistically and in grammar. Some of my hero’s believe in Evolution like William Lane Craig that does not mean that I agree with him. I see too much evidence against evolution therefore I reject it. I can go into them if you like.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Does abiogenesis ring a bell? This is a debunked theory by even those on your side but you are still promoting it like it happened, are you not? Well I can see how I could of misinterpreted the above allegation but telling me that if science don’t prove it your not going to believe it is a lie. You seem to think that the only truth comes from science and that is a fallacy and that is precisely my mission to expose such nonsense.
[..YouTube..] Does abiogenesis ring a bell? This is a debunked theory by even those on your side but you are still promoting it like it happened, are you not? Well I can see how I could of misinterpreted the above allegation but telling me that if science don’t prove it your not going to believe it is a lie. You seem to think that the only truth comes from science and that is a fallacy and that is precisely my mission to expose such nonsense.
Does abiogenesis ring a bell? This is a debunked theory by even those on your side but you are still promoting it like it happened, are you not? Well I can see how I could of misinterpreted the above allegation but telling me that if science don’t prove it your not going to believe it is a lie. You seem to think that the only truth comes from science and that is a fallacy and that is precisely my mission to expose such nonsense.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Well the dictionary disagrees with you. What you seem to be speaking here of is biogenesis the production of living organisms from other living organisms.
[..YouTube..] Well the dictionary disagrees with you. What you seem to be speaking here of is biogenesis the production of living organisms from other living organisms.
Well the dictionary disagrees with you. What you seem to be speaking here of is biogenesis the production of living organisms from other living organisms.
I have decided message you as the amount of comments on your video is getting silly, not to mention the fact that I have to scroll down a very large list of comments to get to the few you have approved and tried to respond to, I will divide up this message into the topics being discussed in the comments for ease of access, I would appreciate it if you did the same.
Origin of life:
-Getting organic chemicals is simple, Three of the five kingdoms Plants, Eugenia and Monoarea use this as either their only or main source of energy.
-These organisms use sunlight as an agent to turn CO2 and H2O into either glucose-a or in some rare cases glucose-b, both organic molecules.
-However organic molecules more often form by themselves in any polar solution (a liquid or gas where the primary molecules have a slight net charge at either end), this is how we get amino-acids, nucleotides and many other organic molecules that are found in water and some hydrocarbons (which themselves are organic).
Age of the Earth:
-there is little beyond a Gama-ray Burst (huge astronomical event) or actively firing “heavy” particles such as neutrons or protons into the nucleus of an atom that can change the rate of decay.
-even when firing “heavy” particles into such atoms the result would (if these were used for dating) always be a lower age rather than a higher one because the particle would knock neutrons into of the sample thus adding mass not subtracting it.
Whales:
-All four species I named are in fact whales, both by the taxonomical definition that I presented and by your own dictionary definition that you presented.
-I actually did expect you to make up your own definition rather than use one from a dictionary that even a quick glance at the well known species that I named would confirm my prediction.
Evolution, is it a science?:
-Evolution is in fact a scientific theory and a fact, in my opinion it is ironic that due to Creationist critics evolution has progressed fast and is far more better understood then General Relativity (Gravity), be it that General Relativity is known to be false yet taught in schools anyway but I hope you see my point.
-Evidence for evolution included but not limited to: Embryology, Genetics, Microbiology, Biochemistry, The Fossil Record, Genetic Markers, Mutation and Variation, Radioactive Decay and Organic Chemistry.
Peer Review:
-Yes, I like all scientists take a roll in the peer review process, we review, sight and offer corrections to experiments and articles, this speaks to sciences strength for example I was working for a treatment for Lung Cancer and conducted and experiment to optimise lung cell growth from stem cells, however a quick review of my experiment from a Polish chap in which he sighted my work revealed that I had left out a particular variable and by including it I could have more accurate results.
@GreedyCapybara7 LOL, so its a fact like gravity, motion, etc? Interesting
how they always associate words like “suggests, imagine, suppose” with
evolution while presenting it. That don’t sound like a fact to me. Hmm I
hate stupid could that mean the evolutionist fall into this category? Your
logic is retarded and your suggestion that Americans are stupid is also
noted.
@GreedyCapybara7 Are you listening to what I am saying here? You can throw
them in all the same box if you want to but they don’t go together. Like I
said before the geologic column where they base this off of is an imaginary
assumption and has nothing to do with time or transitions.
@MaximusMcc none, the platypus is a monotreme (an egg laying mammal) it has milk ducts but no nipples, lays leathery eggs like a reptile, and has a leathery beak similar to all modern monotremes…it is not a rodent like a beaver because it lacks a rodent hip, it is not a snake because it is a mammal and not a duck for the same reason.
@MaximusMcc For me following my “gut feeling” is a thing of the past, we do not date by strata and as a Biologist I can only follow evidence… I think also you are mistaking a journalist for a scientific journalist, they are used in order to convey complicated scientific principals to the masses which lack such an education…all I can do if throw complex terms, that I would then have to explain and why they matter…I guess I could try to explain if you want…but you’ll have to let me know.
@MaximusMcc you seem very fixed on your little belief here, however all I can do is tell you that you are misinformed and why. I assume you mean radiometric dating, I have done many calibration tests myself from such rocks (not technically my field, but a Major in Ancient History gets you into other departments), and I can tell you that depending on what rocks you are looking at, the age of said rock (of which is not known until after testing) and where they are found it can be very accurate.
@GreedyCapybara7 My point of view don’t matter here the facts do and so does the evidence. Put a whale next to the wolf or any creature with 4 legs that are in the fossil record. There is the difference buddy, its NOT THAT HARD!
@MaximusMcc no matter how much you push the geologic column does not change the fact that you are wrong and are using out of date arguments. That’s not how we classify animals and you know that, once again you are performing a logical falsity, in which you take ones argument to extreme and knowingly inaccurate measures to mock the result.
@MaximusMcc no, unlike a scientist a scientific journalist does not make experiments or assess data, he/she/it is only given evidence and told to phrase it in such a way that it makes sense to the populous.
@MaximusMcc as I stated before I had already seen your video, it is an old, bad and previously debunked argument, I’ve been through this before and would prefer I not have to say it again.
@GreedyCapybara7 You still have given me not source that debunks the video that I watch the science experiment all the way though. BTW the people that did the experiment are not flood proponents.
@GreedyCapybara7 LOL I have people with PHD’s Masters and bachelors work for me and most of them are more worthless than tits on a bore hog! Don’t try to dazzle me with your PHD that dont impress me. Reason impresses me, facts impress me , evidence impresses me.
@MaximusMcc I was referring to the Creationist sources not sighting theirs not the other way around, most scientific sources sight where they got their information from, primarily from other papers on the subject or from their own experimentation, I am sure you will be hard pressed to find a scientific source that does not list their findings I am only spouting high school Biology in danger of becoming over complicated, if you want to look it up I recommend Wikipedia for a start.
@MaximusMcc doesn’t matter what they support if they are wrong; for example Darwin’s observations though he supported evolution were largely guess work and not relied upon by modern science because a lot is wrong. The simple explanation is that if something can be explained perfectly soundly, without guess work or magic then that explanation is much more likely.
@GreedyCapybara7 Are you implying that the moon is always inside earths magnetic field? If life surviving were simple why have we not observed it elsewhere in the universe?
@MaximusMcc oh no, life surviving is simple, life only needs certain things, life originating in the first place is much, much more complicated.
@MaximusMcc I recommend you look at the fossils, all three even look like whales, I was never going to ask you to have any education when it comes to identifying fossils, so I chose the three best examples of whales that illustrated my point and looked the part. You are performing the same logical falsity again, it’s not the same as putting those different organisms into the same genus, rather three species of whale into the whale genus, indoctrination only works with religion, evolution is not.
@MaximusMcc oh dear…and thus we have come full circle -you put forward and argument -I tell why you are wrong -you repeat your argument -I further my point -you question why the subject has been changed and put forward your original argument
@MaximusMcc no, they replicated the results they needed, that’s not the same as performing an experiment. There is no evidence of any sort of global flood, nor is there enough water on the planet frozen or otherwise to constitute such a disaster, it’s any body of water that can lay down sediment. And I’m not going to get into Mt St. Helens, hopefully your just smart enough to figure that out.
@MaximusMcc all three
@GreedyCapybara7 Evolution is want to be science and that is all. Creation Science ID science is where we learn real science. We learn about testing hypothesis and what it really means to be a critical free thinker. How not to confuse one creature with another, we have the finest scientist the world has to offer willing to stand for the truth even in the face of loosing their jobs for not supporting falsehoods. You have never done anything remotely that courageous,go lay an egg
@MaximusMcc I’ll rephrase that then, simpler, as in a natural explanation that is scientificly sound (i.e. evolution) should be given authority over magic with no testable evidence. I assure you I am not here to mislead you, I only wanted to correct you on a simple error that you made. However I am interested in your “step 2”, you seem to be hinting that Biology is a religion, is this correct or am I misreading?
@MaximusMcc no, all radiometric dating is the extrapolation of a known decay rate, I will try to keep it simple. For example if you have some chocolate in the fridge and every day you eat one piece, then if you have the original bar to compare it to then you can tell how many days you’ve had the chocolate in the fridge by counting how many pieces are missing. Now if you have 1,000 and you take a piece from each every day then you have corroboration, thus adding accuracy to your results.
@GreedyCapybara7 You are definitely misreading. This is nothing new you cannot even recognize a whale with the definition straight out of the dictionary. You are not misleading me, you are misleading yourself. Biology is a part of Creation and ID science and is accurate according to its “design” and “function”. It is intelligible and readable and we understand it. That is why we can make medicines to help people because in order to make medicine it has to be intelligible.
@MaximusMcc what? evolution is a theory, not a religion you cannot get to one from the other, and I never mentioned snake penis, only that primates were origionaly classified by that feature until we started discovering fossils and discovered that we could not use that characteristic any more.
@GreedyCapybara7 LOL @ peer review. These guys are PAID to look at the evidence and they can be more convinced if the PAY is bigger! Remember when the peer reviewed study of eggs revealed they were bad for humans and then another peer reviewed finding said they were good for you? This is one of MILLIONS of peer reviewed articles and pseudo science. Peer review, what a joke!
@MaximusMcc No, you said that they weren’t whales, when they all are, both by your definition and the taxonomic one. On a side note, do you know what a logical falsity is? If so where have I committed one?
@MaximusMcc Correct, both studies looked at different aspects of the human body. I can honestly tell you done several reviews myself that our pay does not go up or down depending on weather we improve the experiment, or comment, or sight the paper…how could it the process is almost silent.
@MaximusMcc yes, as I am a scientist (more specificity a Biologist) and can only act upon what can be tested (i.e. the natural world) and being Agnostic cannot comment per my philosophy on the supernatural world that may / may not exist.
@MaximusMcc you questioned my education, I told you my education…what part of that is meant to impress you? Although I am confused that you say evidence impress you, yet you support ID an invalid argument, not backed up by any facts, evidence and no applications supplying funding and relies on the donations of the public
@MaximusMcc Science is testable, ID is not Science requires evidence, ID cannot provide any and lies outside science need I go on? Our jobs are not hinging on our observations, if something is tested and observed then we are threatened with losing our jobs and credibility if we do not report it and it is found later. Beyond that, “go lay an egg”, explain I’m not up to all you yanks slang?
@MaximusMcc the rate of decay is not assumed, it’s only an extrapolation on the known rate of decay (which we can get after any short period and draw back), we know from the structure of an atom that nothing can effect this rate of decay short of a particle accelerator.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 You mockery is unjustified by any means and not all 4 fit into that category.
[..YouTube..] You mockery is unjustified by any means and not all 4 fit into that category.
You mockery is unjustified by any means and not all 4 fit into that category.
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc I have yet to mock you, if I have I am sorry and please show me where I have done this.You described a whale as “Any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened.”All four animals I described fit into this category…sorry, at least don’t assume that I’m wrong before doing any research for yourself.
[..YouTube..] I have yet to mock you, if I have I am sorry and please show me where I have done this.You described a whale as “Any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened.”All four animals I described fit into this category…sorry, at least don’t assume that I’m wrong before doing any research for yourself.
I have yet to mock you, if I have I am sorry and please show me where I have done this.You described a whale as “Any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened.”All four animals I described fit into this category…sorry, at least don’t assume that I’m wrong before doing any research for yourself.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 ID is not testable? Your joking right? This is all science is, there are intelligent patterns in nature that are testable because of the structure of the physical world around us. You can identify intelligence everywhere in nature-ID. Your job hinges on a lie, endorsing a lie, promoting a lie at all costs no matter what. You are not a free thinker and probably never will be sadly. Go lay an egg = chicken brain
[..YouTube..] ID is not testable? Your joking right? This is all science is, there are intelligent patterns in nature that are testable because of the structure of the physical world around us. You can identify intelligence everywhere in nature-ID. Your job hinges on a lie, endorsing a lie, promoting a lie at all costs no matter what. You are not a free thinker and probably never will be sadly. Go lay an egg = chicken brain
ID is not testable? Your joking right? This is all science is, there are intelligent patterns in nature that are testable because of the structure of the physical world around us. You can identify intelligence everywhere in nature-ID. Your job hinges on a lie, endorsing a lie, promoting a lie at all costs no matter what. You are not a free thinker and probably never will be sadly. Go lay an egg = chicken brain
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Funny very funny! So nobody is trying to find souls today?
[..YouTube..] Funny very funny! So nobody is trying to find souls today?
Funny very funny! So nobody is trying to find souls today?
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc No, I’m not joking, when something is supernatural it is aceo-facto untestable, however I am nothing if not curious…could you give me an example of evidence for ID.I am a scientist, my job hinges on being a free thinker, this does not mean dogma or faith but following the evidence regardless of my own personal preferences.On another side note, “chicken brain”…explain what it means please, still not up on you yanks slang?
[..YouTube..] No, I’m not joking, when something is supernatural it is aceo-facto untestable, however I am nothing if not curious…could you give me an example of evidence for ID.I am a scientist, my job hinges on being a free thinker, this does not mean dogma or faith but following the evidence regardless of my own personal preferences.On another side note, “chicken brain”…explain what it means please, still not up on you yanks slang?
No, I’m not joking, when something is supernatural it is aceo-facto untestable, however I am nothing if not curious…could you give me an example of evidence for ID.I am a scientist, my job hinges on being a free thinker, this does not mean dogma or faith but following the evidence regardless of my own personal preferences.On another side note, “chicken brain”…explain what it means please, still not up on you yanks slang?
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Apparently you are not picking up that I believe that you are totally indoctrinated. Your willingness to outright lie is proof enough for me. I have been indoctrinated with 1st religion, rejected it and 2nd embraced evolution & atheism with open arms now 3rd I am on my own. Not affiliated with either just letting the evidence lead me wherever it takes me. Its a hard thing to swallow when you are proved wrong but liberating at the same time, try it I dare you!
[..YouTube..] Apparently you are not picking up that I believe that you are totally indoctrinated. Your willingness to outright lie is proof enough for me. I have been indoctrinated with 1st religion, rejected it and 2nd embraced evolution & atheism with open arms now 3rd I am on my own. Not affiliated with either just letting the evidence lead me wherever it takes me. Its a hard thing to swallow when you are proved wrong but liberating at the same time, try it I dare you!
Apparently you are not picking up that I believe that you are totally indoctrinated. Your willingness to outright lie is proof enough for me. I have been indoctrinated with 1st religion, rejected it and 2nd embraced evolution & atheism with open arms now 3rd I am on my own. Not affiliated with either just letting the evidence lead me wherever it takes me. Its a hard thing to swallow when you are proved wrong but liberating at the same time, try it I dare you!
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc it is, short of firing particles at isotopes approaching the speed of light or a gama-ray burst there if literally nothing that can effect the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes, otherwise we could use it to naturalise radioactive waste.Here in Australia if such a thing did exist, we would be all over it
[..YouTube..] it is, short of firing particles at isotopes approaching the speed of light or a gama-ray burst there if literally nothing that can effect the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes, otherwise we could use it to naturalise radioactive waste.Here in Australia if such a thing did exist, we would be all over it
it is, short of firing particles at isotopes approaching the speed of light or a gama-ray burst there if literally nothing that can effect the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes, otherwise we could use it to naturalise radioactive waste.Here in Australia if such a thing did exist, we would be all over it
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 lol, ur a crack pot. You think like a cop, the law only the law and there is nothing else but THE LAW!. You can only act upon whats scientifically tested, there’s another lie. I can think of 5 things right off the bat that you do that have nothing to do with science. Let see if you can guess them or are you going to lie some more?
[..YouTube..] lol, ur a crack pot. You think like a cop, the law only the law and there is nothing else but THE LAW!. You can only act upon whats scientifically tested, there’s another lie. I can think of 5 things right off the bat that you do that have nothing to do with science. Let see if you can guess them or are you going to lie some more?
lol, ur a crack pot. You think like a cop, the law only the law and there is nothing else but THE LAW!. You can only act upon whats scientifically tested, there’s another lie. I can think of 5 things right off the bat that you do that have nothing to do with science. Let see if you can guess them or are you going to lie some more?
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Oh that makes me feel so much better about peer review articles, knowing that you are approving them. Tremendous!
[..YouTube..] Oh that makes me feel so much better about peer review articles, knowing that you are approving them. Tremendous!
Oh that makes me feel so much better about peer review articles, knowing that you are approving them. Tremendous!
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Whale:any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened. DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ALL OF THE CREATURES YOU DESCRIBED? NO!
[..YouTube..] Whale:any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened. DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ALL OF THE CREATURES YOU DESCRIBED? NO!
Whale:any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened. DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ALL OF THE CREATURES YOU DESCRIBED? NO!
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc Excuse me, Abiogenesis is simple Biochemistry, if you think it is incorrect then put up a case against it, show which of the steps is impossible.It is not spontaneous generation, rather the progression of organic molecules to what we recognise today as simple life.
[..YouTube..] Excuse me, Abiogenesis is simple Biochemistry, if you think it is incorrect then put up a case against it, show which of the steps is impossible.It is not spontaneous generation, rather the progression of organic molecules to what we recognise today as simple life.
Excuse me, Abiogenesis is simple Biochemistry, if you think it is incorrect then put up a case against it, show which of the steps is impossible.It is not spontaneous generation, rather the progression of organic molecules to what we recognise today as simple life.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Yeah maybe you should get one! How about getting chemicals in the first place, is that good enough for you?
[..YouTube..] Yeah maybe you should get one! How about getting chemicals in the first place, is that good enough for you?
Yeah maybe you should get one! How about getting chemicals in the first place, is that good enough for you?
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 I already answered that question above, getting the chemicals in the first place. How did you chemicals appear? Now I would love to hear your answer to that one!
[..YouTube..] I already answered that question above, getting the chemicals in the first place. How did you chemicals appear? Now I would love to hear your answer to that one!
I already answered that question above, getting the chemicals in the first place. How did you chemicals appear? Now I would love to hear your answer to that one!
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc again, I have yet to lie, if I have please show where I have and I will correct it otherwise don’t make such allegations without evidence.Honestly I cannot think of anything I have done that has nothing to do with science and I can only act as a scientist on testable, conferable evidence
[..YouTube..] again, I have yet to lie, if I have please show where I have and I will correct it otherwise don’t make such allegations without evidence.Honestly I cannot think of anything I have done that has nothing to do with science and I can only act as a scientist on testable, conferable evidence
again, I have yet to lie, if I have please show where I have and I will correct it otherwise don’t make such allegations without evidence.Honestly I cannot think of anything I have done that has nothing to do with science and I can only act as a scientist on testable, conferable evidence
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc nowhere is evolution and Atheism connected, in fact most Biologists are Christian to veering degrees, simply because I am non-theist is not an indication of the scientific community.Other than that I cannot tell what you are actually saying, please repeat using proper grammar and English so I can rebut.
[..YouTube..] nowhere is evolution and Atheism connected, in fact most Biologists are Christian to veering degrees, simply because I am non-theist is not an indication of the scientific community.Other than that I cannot tell what you are actually saying, please repeat using proper grammar and English so I can rebut.
nowhere is evolution and Atheism connected, in fact most Biologists are Christian to veering degrees, simply because I am non-theist is not an indication of the scientific community.Other than that I cannot tell what you are actually saying, please repeat using proper grammar and English so I can rebut.
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc not nobody, there are always people reviewing old work to see where an experiment could have gone wrong, but for the most part the “soul” hypothesis has gone the same way as the “flat earth” hypothesis, “elemental theory” and “Newtonian Gravity”.Other than that something untestable does not mean that it does not exist, for example there may or may not be a soul in humans/ animals/ all life, but until evidence appears to point to such a conclusion then we cannot say it’s true.
[..YouTube..] not nobody, there are always people reviewing old work to see where an experiment could have gone wrong, but for the most part the “soul” hypothesis has gone the same way as the “flat earth” hypothesis, “elemental theory” and “Newtonian Gravity”.Other than that something untestable does not mean that it does not exist, for example there may or may not be a soul in humans/ animals/ all life, but until evidence appears to point to such a conclusion then we cannot say it’s true.
not nobody, there are always people reviewing old work to see where an experiment could have gone wrong, but for the most part the “soul” hypothesis has gone the same way as the “flat earth” hypothesis, “elemental theory” and “Newtonian Gravity”.Other than that something untestable does not mean that it does not exist, for example there may or may not be a soul in humans/ animals/ all life, but until evidence appears to point to such a conclusion then we cannot say it’s true.
[..YouTube..] @MaximusMcc If your talking about getting organic chemicals from non-oganic chemicals that is actually the easy bit, plants do this with CO2 and H2O (both non-organic)to make glucose-a (organic), this happens in almost any polar solution such as water and some oils when carbon in any state, N2 and oxygen + hydrogen either as water of as a gas…getting organic molecules is quick and relatively easy getting life from this is the hard part.
[..YouTube..] If your talking about getting organic chemicals from non-oganic chemicals that is actually the easy bit, plants do this with CO2 and H2O (both non-organic)to make glucose-a (organic), this happens in almost any polar solution such as water and some oils when carbon in any state, N2 and oxygen + hydrogen either as water of as a gas…getting organic molecules is quick and relatively easy getting life from this is the hard part.
If your talking about getting organic chemicals from non-oganic chemicals that is actually the easy bit, plants do this with CO2 and H2O (both non-organic)to make glucose-a (organic), this happens in almost any polar solution such as water and some oils when carbon in any state, N2 and oxygen + hydrogen either as water of as a gas…getting organic molecules is quick and relatively easy getting life from this is the hard part.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 This is still pseudo science no matter how you slice the cheese. There is too many variables and there are too many assumptions that come into play. I am not doubting that these are the readings that you get from radiometric dating, the rate of decay but comparing 2 isotopes and firing particles at one to make it match the other ones condition then saying give or take a couple million years is hardly science observable and tested.
in teh Quran: Ask if ye know not! It is mentioned in the Quran in two pclaes: 16:43 and 21:7.This rule means that there is no place for our opinion in Islam, there is only Quran, Sunnah and the words of the followers of the Remembrance i.e. the scholars. And if it was otherwise Islam would turn into that wich christianity and judaism are now, that were corrupted by people following ther desires.As for our subject, one thing can be said here unequivocally there is no such thing as modern Islam . There is Islam as it was when it was brought by the Prophet (peace be upon him) more than 1400 years ago. Muslims should neither conform to the year 2010 nor 2100.As for the words tha muslims hould be identified as such by the dress these words contradict the words of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) who said: The one who imitates a people (a nation) is one of them . (Abu Dawud, al-Libas 4031; classed as sahih by Sheikh Albani in Sunan Abu DAwud 3401). And Prophet called muslims not to imitate the disbelievers and be different from them in clothes, behavious and everything else. So the one who sais that muslims should blend into the modern society meaning the west, has gone astray from the way of the Messenger of Allah and our righteous predecessors (salaf salih).As for our new sisters or those who are going to embrace Islam we shouldn’t corrupt the basics of our religion just to make people like it. If Alla decides to open someone’s heart for Islam he will embrace it with all its rules and principles, and women’s modest clothing won’t deter him or her. And if Allah has sealed someone’s heart for Islam he won’t accept it no matter how hard you try to beautify it. Allah verily sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He will. (35:8)I don’t know whether you are a muslim or not because you didn’t give an islamic salam. But if you are a muslim i tell you jazzakumuLlahu khairon for nasihat. And if you’re not muslim i advice you learn about the basics of this religion anf then you’ll see how beautiful it is and question like modest clothing won’t bother you.АльхамдулиЛлях Аллах подарил нам прекрасную религию, совершенную во всем, и одно из ее чудес и самых главных правил, именно из-за которого во многом сохраняется ее первозданность и истинность до сегодняшнего дня, в отличие от других религий, который были искажены это правило, которое Аллах прописал в Коране: А если вы не знаете, то спросите обладающих знанием. Это упоминается в Коране в двух местах: 16:43 и 21:7.Это правило означает, что в Исламе нет нашего мнения, есть только Коран, Сунна и слова обладающих напоминанием то есть ученых. А если бы было иначе то Ислам превратился бы в то, что сегодня представляют из себя христианство и иудаизм, которые были искажены людьми по их страстям.Что касается этой темы, то тут можно сказать однозначно нет никакого современного Ислама . Есть Ислам в том виде, в котором он пришел с Пророком (да благословит его Аллах и приветствует) более чем 1400 лет назад. Мусульмане не должны подстраиваться ни под 2010 год, ни под 2100, ни под какой.Что касается слов, что мусульмане должны быть идентифицированы как таковые не из-за одежды, то эти слова противоречат словам Посланника Аллаха (да благословит его Аллах и приветствует), который сказал: Кто уподобился какому-то народу, тот один из них”. (Абу Давуд, аль-Либаас 4031; назван сахих шейхом Альбани в Сунан Абу Давуд 3401) И Пророк призвал мусульман не подражать неверным и отличаться от них в одежде, поведении и во всем остальном. Так что тот, кто говорит, что мусульмане должны подстроиться под образ жизни современного общества , имея ввиду запад, тот отошел от того, на чем был Пророк Аллаха и наши праведные предшественники.Что касается новых сестер или тех, кто только собирается принять Ислам, то мы не должны искажать основы религии только ради того, чтобы кому-то это понравилось. Если Аллах решил открыть кому-то сердце для Ислама, то он примет его со всеми его правилами и установками, и закрытая одежда мусульманок его не отпугнет. А если Аллах запечатал чье-то сердце для Ислама, то как бы вы ни приукрашали нашу религию, он все равно его не примет. abАллах, воистину, оставляет в заблуждении, кого пожелает, и наставляет на правильный путь, кого пожелаетbb (35:8)Я не знаю, мусульманка вы или нет, потому что вы не дали исламского приветствия, но если вы мусульманка, то я скажу вам джазакумуЛлаху хайран за насыхат. А если вы немусульманка, то я посоветую вам изучить основы этой религии, и тогда вы увидите, насколько она прекрасна, и такие вопросы как закрытая одежда не будут вас волновать.
[..YouTube..] This is still pseudo science no matter how you slice the cheese. There is too many variables and there are too many assumptions that come into play. I am not doubting that these are the readings that you get from radiometric dating, the rate of decay but comparing 2 isotopes and firing particles at one to make it match the other ones condition then saying give or take a couple million years is hardly science observable and tested.
This is still pseudo science no matter how you slice the cheese. There is too many variables and there are too many assumptions that come into play. I am not doubting that these are the readings that you get from radiometric dating, the rate of decay but comparing 2 isotopes and firing particles at one to make it match the other ones condition then saying give or take a couple million years is hardly science observable and tested.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Dancing with words is something that I am not enthused about and I am not about to go into a detailed conversation about mockery and how it works. Cetacea: “order of marine mammals containing whales,” 1830, Mod.L., from L. cetus, from Gk. ketos “a whale.” Hence cetology “the study of whales,” first attested 1851 in “Moby Dick.”Ambulocetus don’t look like Moby Dick. Rodhocetus looks more like Ambulocetus but still a different creature altogether.No ancestor proof
[..YouTube..] Dancing with words is something that I am not enthused about and I am not about to go into a detailed conversation about mockery and how it works. Cetacea: “order of marine mammals containing whales,” 1830, Mod.L., from L. cetus, from Gk. ketos “a whale.” Hence cetology “the study of whales,” first attested 1851 in “Moby Dick.”Ambulocetus don’t look like Moby Dick. Rodhocetus looks more like Ambulocetus but still a different creature altogether.No ancestor proof
Dancing with words is something that I am not enthused about and I am not about to go into a detailed conversation about mockery and how it works. Cetacea: “order of marine mammals containing whales,” 1830, Mod.L., from L. cetus, from Gk. ketos “a whale.” Hence cetology “the study of whales,” first attested 1851 in “Moby Dick.”Ambulocetus don’t look like Moby Dick. Rodhocetus looks more like Ambulocetus but still a different creature altogether.No ancestor proof
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Never-mind about the chicken brain its stale. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Everything is ID take your pick molecules, planets suns and stars, systems, adaptation etc we can detect design in everything.
[..YouTube..] Never-mind about the chicken brain its stale. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Everything is ID take your pick molecules, planets suns and stars, systems, adaptation etc we can detect design in everything.
Never-mind about the chicken brain its stale. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Everything is ID take your pick molecules, planets suns and stars, systems, adaptation etc we can detect design in everything.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 LOL @ testing for a soul. That’s funny!
@GreedyCapybara7 LOL @ testing for a soul. That’s funny!
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Funny that I agree with Richard Dawkins on the one. Evolution is the only game in town for atheist so endorsing it is imperative. I am sure the culture gap has a bearing on what is understood by me. I will try to be more sensitive linguistically and in grammar. Some of my hero’s believe in Evolution like William Lane Craig that does not mean that I agree with him. I see too much evidence against evolution therefore I reject it. I can go into them if you like.
[..YouTube..] Funny that I agree with Richard Dawkins on the one. Evolution is the only game in town for atheist so endorsing it is imperative. I am sure the culture gap has a bearing on what is understood by me. I will try to be more sensitive linguistically and in grammar. Some of my hero’s believe in Evolution like William Lane Craig that does not mean that I agree with him. I see too much evidence against evolution therefore I reject it. I can go into them if you like.
Funny that I agree with Richard Dawkins on the one. Evolution is the only game in town for atheist so endorsing it is imperative. I am sure the culture gap has a bearing on what is understood by me. I will try to be more sensitive linguistically and in grammar. Some of my hero’s believe in Evolution like William Lane Craig that does not mean that I agree with him. I see too much evidence against evolution therefore I reject it. I can go into them if you like.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Does abiogenesis ring a bell? This is a debunked theory by even those on your side but you are still promoting it like it happened, are you not? Well I can see how I could of misinterpreted the above allegation but telling me that if science don’t prove it your not going to believe it is a lie. You seem to think that the only truth comes from science and that is a fallacy and that is precisely my mission to expose such nonsense.
[..YouTube..] Does abiogenesis ring a bell? This is a debunked theory by even those on your side but you are still promoting it like it happened, are you not? Well I can see how I could of misinterpreted the above allegation but telling me that if science don’t prove it your not going to believe it is a lie. You seem to think that the only truth comes from science and that is a fallacy and that is precisely my mission to expose such nonsense.
Does abiogenesis ring a bell? This is a debunked theory by even those on your side but you are still promoting it like it happened, are you not? Well I can see how I could of misinterpreted the above allegation but telling me that if science don’t prove it your not going to believe it is a lie. You seem to think that the only truth comes from science and that is a fallacy and that is precisely my mission to expose such nonsense.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Yes I am familiar but there is an agent, the plant which is alive organically in the first place.
[..YouTube..] Yes I am familiar but there is an agent, the plant which is alive organically in the first place.
Yes I am familiar but there is an agent, the plant which is alive organically in the first place.
[..YouTube..] @GreedyCapybara7 Well the dictionary disagrees with you. What you seem to be speaking here of is biogenesis the production of living organisms from other living organisms.
[..YouTube..] Well the dictionary disagrees with you. What you seem to be speaking here of is biogenesis the production of living organisms from other living organisms.
Well the dictionary disagrees with you. What you seem to be speaking here of is biogenesis the production of living organisms from other living organisms.
I have decided message you as the amount of comments on your video is getting silly, not to mention the fact that I have to scroll down a very large list of comments to get to the few you have approved and tried to respond to, I will divide up this message into the topics being discussed in the comments for ease of access, I would appreciate it if you did the same.
Origin of life:
-Getting organic chemicals is simple, Three of the five kingdoms Plants, Eugenia and Monoarea use this as either their only or main source of energy.
-These organisms use sunlight as an agent to turn CO2 and H2O into either glucose-a or in some rare cases glucose-b, both organic molecules.
-However organic molecules more often form by themselves in any polar solution (a liquid or gas where the primary molecules have a slight net charge at either end), this is how we get amino-acids, nucleotides and many other organic molecules that are found in water and some hydrocarbons (which themselves are organic).
Age of the Earth:
-there is little beyond a Gama-ray Burst (huge astronomical event) or actively firing “heavy” particles such as neutrons or protons into the nucleus of an atom that can change the rate of decay.
-even when firing “heavy” particles into such atoms the result would (if these were used for dating) always be a lower age rather than a higher one because the particle would knock neutrons into of the sample thus adding mass not subtracting it.
Whales:
-All four species I named are in fact whales, both by the taxonomical definition that I presented and by your own dictionary definition that you presented.
-I actually did expect you to make up your own definition rather than use one from a dictionary that even a quick glance at the well known species that I named would confirm my prediction.
Evolution, is it a science?:
-Evolution is in fact a scientific theory and a fact, in my opinion it is ironic that due to Creationist critics evolution has progressed fast and is far more better understood then General Relativity (Gravity), be it that General Relativity is known to be false yet taught in schools anyway but I hope you see my point.
-Evidence for evolution included but not limited to: Embryology, Genetics, Microbiology, Biochemistry, The Fossil Record, Genetic Markers, Mutation and Variation, Radioactive Decay and Organic Chemistry.
Peer Review:
-Yes, I like all scientists take a roll in the peer review process, we review, sight and offer corrections to experiments and articles, this speaks to sciences strength for example I was working for a treatment for Lung Cancer and conducted and experiment to optimise lung cell growth from stem cells, however a quick review of my experiment from a Polish chap in which he sighted my work revealed that I had left out a particular variable and by including it I could have more accurate results.