Science and Critical Thinking
Produced by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, this compilation titled Science and Critical Thinking presents a series of convincing vignettes designed to celebrate the power of science from unique perspectives. Each enlightening segment features insights from a panel of philosophers, professors, scientists and professional skeptics. At the center of it all is Dawkins himself, a renowned figure who started his foundation as a means of spreading the gospel of evolution, and preventing its extinction from classrooms and other forums throughout the world.
These evolutionary principles are illustrated in several of the segments hosted by Dawkins, including one titled Saddles and Domes: Evolution of the Giant Tortoises. In this vignette, Dawkins explores the capacity of these fascinating creatures to adapt to new environments, particularly through the reformation of their protective shells. In another segment titled Why Are There Still Chimpanzees?, Dawkins explains our evolutionary relationship with the planet's hierarchy of primates. Psychology professor Robert Seyfarth continues the exploration of the primate by examining the calls of the vervet monkey, which may serve as an indication of our earliest forms of language.
The material contained in Science and Critical Thinking serves an important function, especially in the midst of a society which too often trades the value of scientific reasoning for conspiracies, shallow speculations and ill-considered teachings. "You equip yourself with information about the world to be literate across the whole range, and especially to be scientifically literate," says A.C. Grayling, a revered philosopher and one of the film's distinguished hosts. "To be an informed participant in the great conversation of mankind is to have an alert awareness and understanding of what's happening in the world.'
In Grayling's view, skepticism and critical thinking are paramount to leading a worthwhile existence and realizing the potential of your humanity; a sentiment echoed throughout the instructions of each illuminating segment of the film.
Fast-paced, engrossing and informative, Science and Critical Thinking explores our relationship to and continued understanding of the evolutionary process, the evidence of which we witness across nearly every aspect of our daily environment and in the farthest reaches of the globe.
This doc tries to hammer home the hypnotic brainwashing mantra ‘science reveals truth’ - and everyone questioning ‘science’ is an idiot. However, this doc fails to acknowledge the real truth. that corrupt organisations exist to hide the truth and those wishing to deceive, will use ‘science’ to prevent the canny ones (who smell a big fat dead rat), from exposing the deceptions, while using the ‘buck stops here’ science-block for defending their lies (at times blatant), masquerading as truths. Always do your own research.
"Why should we believe the skeptics? You shouldn't...", he said, funny how he breaks his own premise in demanding that alternative views to evolution have no place in academy.
But let's dissect his thinking.
The cosmos background explorer, COBE found the universe to be 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter and only 4% visible matter, now all our science is based on visible matter, planets, stars and galaxies, but our planet is so small it fits 1,300,000 times in the sun which is not the largest star in the universe.
Here is the question: with such a small sample, how reliable is your data to extrapolate to the whole universe? But it gets even worst, up to the 19th century, classical physics had a hold on science, but with the advent of quantum mechanics, many of these principles are left wanting. For one, the uncertainty principle said that the most you know of a particle, the less you can assert anything about it. A very real contradiction and a stop to any human attempt to explain the cosmos. All we can propose is just a probability of something happening!
Now in terms of evolution, humans are just not another species. You don't see a dog, a bird, a fish..pausing to think: where am I going? Where did I come from? Am I treating my fellows along the Golden Rule? See we are different, we have a soul and this opens up men to the spiritual life. God does not reveal himself to academics, he shows himself in nature's intrinsic details, in the anthropic principle, everyday he is open for anyone that looks to him,...but you must believe that he exist. Think about this, we all get to know our parents thru faith, we trust that they are our parents. How will they feel if we demand a DNA test before we accept them? That's how God feels when when you demand DNA from God.
...and don't call satan ancient demon possession, there are many books, videos, movies, witnesses of actual demon possession, here you fail to investigate the claims of your antagonists, in spite of your claims at the beginning of the film.
Your biases are latent, and they have eternal consequences,...the smart thing is to find out if God is for real.
Will you challenge my God?
Scientism masquerading as science. The base assumption is that only the material is real, and consciousness is either an illusion or an artifact of the physical. This they adhere to in the face of strong evidence that consciousness exists independently of the material world, and is perhaps the fundamental reality. It's alright to hold this view of reality, but one can't call it science when there is zero openness to revision based on experimental results. Richard Dawkins wouldn't even deign to look at Rupert Sheldrake's slides when the two debated. He's no more open-minded than the most committed religious fundamentalist. I love the way Alex T. at Skeptico takes on these diehard materialists - nice to see somebody hit them with the hard questions and expose the rigidity and internal contradictions of their belief system.
This film also fails to recognize the corruption of the institutions and processes of science. As with nearly everything else, big money and political clout often call the shots in science, overriding experimental results and merit. It’s an open secret that the gag rule for submitted scientific papers is often violated when a paper threatens the status quo, and a defense mounted prior to publication (if the paper isn't outright blackballed from publication). It wasn't proper science that led to GMOs being granted "Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS)" status or being declared "substantially equivalent" to conventional crops, it was big bucks and political hardball. Harvard Medical School ran a study designed (in part) to find remedies to flaws in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but when they concluded - based on their results - that VAERS underreports adverse events by over 99%, the CDC dropped all contact with them and the study was ignored. Was that good science? How about the Benveniste affair, in which the French researcher was ridiculed and marginalized for the offense of reporting experimental results that gave credence to homeopathy? Benveniste’s team was branded as sloppy and their published paper in the journal Nature was retracted. The fact that 3 other labs had independently replicated Benveniste’s results, their principals’ names also appearing on the study, was ignored in favor of isolating Benveniste and his team as quacks at the periphery of science. Similarly, many excellent studies have been conducted, supporting the reality of psi phenomena, but mainstream science will never accept the results. They bring up one theoretical problem after another, and when subsequent experiments eliminate the possibility of those issues, "skeptics" dream up new theoretical problems. Meanwhile, convenient science can be sloppy indeed, with little or no consequences, as when drug companies use previously approved vaccines or toxic adjuvants as “placebos” to test vaccine safety.
It’s a good idea to develop “baloney detection” skills as advocated by this film, but if the standards were applied equally to all sources, not just those challenging the status quo, many “skeptic” websites and skeptic scientists would be deemed highly suspect. Skeptics are often heavily financed by the medical industrial complex, for example, and aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them. They will automatically attack any science that threatens the interests of their benefactors. Moreover, some of these baloney detection points seem to be thinly disguised excuses rather than legitimate reasons to reject alternative science. For example, the second toolkit point, “Does the source make similar claims?” is really “guilt by association” in nicer clothing. Oh, so-and-so says the experimental evidence for the reality of psi is good, but did you know, he also believes in extraterrestrials? A nice little tool, indeed, to sweep away inconvenient science.
"whats all this politics stuff, well it's because we are people" gives example of right wing denial of climate change.
"remove politics and ideology".
what sort of reasoning is this ?
how does this mean ideology is the problem ?
all I can gather from that is right wing ideology is a problem.
Anything with Richard Dawkins is always a case of selective truth and narrow viewpoint.
Whenever I read people dismissing absolutelly well stablished scientific standards I realize it's people who haven't got the slightiest hint of a remote clue about science. They come up with outdated theories, already debunked 3rd party hypothesis, misunderstood concepts... Just a few examples:
- We have actually already witnessed speciation real time both in laboratory conditions and in nature, in some insects and fish.
- Even if we did not have one single fossile, evolution would still be an undeniable fact of which we have an inmense amount of evidence thanks to genetics.
- We have already seen many other solar systems in many different stages of their formation. We know exactly how ours formed.
- "Something coming out of nothing" is happening all the time at the quantum level.
- Dark matter is there and we know exactly where to find it and how to detect it. We just don't know what it is... yet.
- The Big Bang did happen and we actually know exactly how the universe evolved from just a tiny fraction of a second right after the "explosion" (and no, it was not an actual explosion).
- "What was there before the Big Bang?". If you use this question to question science you are only showing, again, you have no clue. Time started with the Big Bang. There is no "before the Big Bang", time didn't exist until then.
I could go on for ages with examples like this. Those are just a few.
Dave A. You are a big joke..By the law of Cause and Effect, what "caused" the big bang??
planets gravitational influence upon each other and in comparison with their host star are negligible. The stars are kept in stasis by the collective gravitational pull in all directions balanced against centripetal force.
What these smug and pompous recent run of Dawkins types neglect to mention is that each and every one of their fundamental premises are unprovable and called theory, but are really only speculation. The "cause" of the Big Bang, the "proofs" for (macro)evolution, the ambiguous and contradictory answers given for fundamental matters of empirical science (age of the Earth, number of stars in our own galaxy...the temperature on Mars...the nature of gravity, the reason for aging and the procession of time, etc.), all of these amount to guessing and speculation, in fact with no more claim to "truth" or "reality" than a bevy of gods creating the universe on a whim. THIS is their religion, a baseless, essentially moral-less commitment to, at best, the majority opinion in contemporary science. That this is good enough, in this day and age, that is, that parroting today's science as your religion of choice is better than, oh, belief in God and Creation, is so laughable it hardly merits discussion. And that they do not define their commitment to these unproven speculations as a religion, or exactly like one, makes it even funnier.
I will in time address your whole post.But I find it easier to address claims one at a time so please defime " (macro)evolution," in scientific terms and i will try to give scientific proof proving it or correct any mis conceptions you might have.
Sure you go ahead and make some time and think about it. Realize though it's not my job to educate you pseudo-educated types, who should have been already exposed to this theoretical distinction you ask me to define. But let's just say your intentions might also be to learn rather than "correct", which I doubt, because no believers are more fanatical in their religious commitment to mediocrity and speculation than Evolutionists and Big Bangers. They just do not hear anything contrary to their godless religion, and would without conscience (LOL) cast any doubters into the heretical fires.
I have no misconceptions here, I know the so-called science, and I am aware of the best this science can do on these issues, and still I find it laughable, as did many famous scientists back when these ideas were introduced (I am sure an educated person would be aware of who they are). But I'll go ahead and play your game. "Macro" evolution is what Darwin set out to prove, claimed to have proven, but never did, that is, the Origin of Species, especially as deriving from other species. Nobody has ever argued against "micro" evolution, meaning from Anaximander to Aristotle to DeVries we have always known that species change over time in adaptation to surroundings and circumstance. Darwin the Dolt's "genius" has in fact been known for thousands of years and not a lick of new science of any import can found in his masterwork. Only ignorance of history, and lack of alternative, keeps his retread ideas alive at all.
But more importantly, what made Darwin's version of adaptation "different" was his wild and still unproven claim that a species of one kind can not only change as a species, but rather turn into a different one - through mutation, environment, or whatever. This is macro-evolution, one of the steaming hottest piles of theoretical bunk ever to come from an alleged scientific mind. Incidentally this is why Darwinists, and Big Bangers, change their beloved theories constantly, to accommodate for the many exceptions that arise, and the continued lack of any evidence whatsoever proving his fundamental claim.
Now here is when the "educated" Dawkinites (I'd spot him a ten and he still couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag) use their line "well give us a better alternative". I answer this by saying, alternative to what? It is hearsay and that lack of alternative alone that has allowed this silly theory and credence at all. As far as I see it, give me one reason, one piece of evidence better than a UFO photo supposedly proving the existence of aliens, to believe (and that is what is is, just another belief...) that man came from the slow mutation of simian creatures over time, or for that matter, that lizards came from frogs. Maybe, in fact, chimps came from humans, perhaps they were those men who forgot where they came from, and who instead sought their heritage in dirt, fantastic cosmic explosions of no source, and primordial slime.
Again I am prepared to address your claims ONE AT A TIME. All i asked for is a definition of "macro " evolution. You failed to provide that. How am I supposed to give an example of a so far undefined claim? Give your definition and I will respond. Then and only then will I move on to your other claims. I am immune to your red herrings. But nice try you made claims not me I have nothing to prove
What a crock of horse manure buddy. Jerk someone else off. It's not my definition/distinction in terms, it is accepted in scientific community, here it is again to fix your reading comprehension. And upvoting yourself doesn't impress me:
""Macro" evolution is what Darwin set out to prove, claimed to have proven, but never did, that is, the Origin of Species, especially as deriving from other species. Nobody has ever argued against "micro" evolution, meaning from Anaximander to Aristotle to DeVries we have always known that species change over time in adaptation to surroundings and circumstance. Darwin the Dolt's "genius" has in fact been known for thousands of years and not a lick of new science of any import can found in his masterwork. Only ignorance of history, and lack of alternative, keeps his retread ideas alive at all.
But more importantly, what made Darwin's version of adaptation "different" was his wild and still unproven claim that a species of one kind can not only change as a species, but rather turn into a different one - through mutation, environment, or whatever. This is macro-evolution..."
But I'll make it easy cliff-notes style for you, after all, it's how you all educate yourselves. MACROevolution claims species evolve out of other species. This wild, unproven, even ridiuculously silly claim is Darwin's "genius". MICROevolution claims individual species change over time. This is fact and been known for centuries before Darwin ever sucked up a penny of Erasmus' money. Clear, answer man (LOL)?
Okay you are looking for a speciation event. look up the "long term e-coli evolution experiment". It is a fully documented, repeated and observed example of one species evolving into another.
No, actually it's not, since these organisms are not separate species at all, but rather variants of the previously (barely) studied eColi (read: essential to humankind). To say these bacteria and virus type of creatures are "different" than what they came from is the same as saying green-eyes fruit flies are a different species than blue-eyes fruit flies. Try again, and bring something in the form of a demonstration of one species evolving into a different one that isn't 20 year old science and bad science at that. be serious, don't show me a virus or bacteria evolving into a "different" virus or bacteria. Show me a bacteria or even protobiont that evolves into, oh, an ant, or even a paramecium. You cannot, answer man. Darwin didn't do what the title of his book promised, and scientists have still not been able to show how different species come to be. Those are the facts, whether you like it or not. One at a time pffffffft. LOL what a rube.
Sorry you are wrong . It is a new species. The fact that you refuse to admit that is your issue. That is why i asked for a scientific definition of "macro" evolution. So show me where this example of speciation is scienrifically incorrect? but mow you ask "bacteria or even protobiont that evolves into, oh, an ant". you now move the goalposts, Just what i expected. I gave you exactly what you asked for. I even asked for clairification on your request to make sure. Also I could care less what Darwin promised. The theory of evolution has moved well past that. But if you wish to remain over 150 years in the past be my guest.
I would also like to point out that nowhere in the theory of evolution does iy claim a species evolves out of its heritage. Yes it is still Bacteria. Just like we are still apes.
No, it's not, because you cannot cite one meaningful differentiating characteristic of said microorganism from its "parents". All you can do is cite this myth as fact like everyone else of your ilk, and why, because you dolts have no other recourse, no other way to prove any single species mutates into another one. It's the "let's pull the bacteria through thousands of generations" card. If you think that idiot Lenski's "conclusions" sound like a new species, well, let's read for ourselves:
" A professor at Michigan State University, Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. Since his Long-Term Experimental Evolution Project began in 1988, the bacteria have doubled in size, begun to mutate more quickly, and become more efficient at using the glucose in the solution where they’re grown."
Yeah, 59,000 generations, and what? They've gotten bigger, no doubt because of the "superfeed" their being given, and become better at using sugars, because that's all they have to eat. But it's no new species. It's still ecoli, and you are still wasting my time big shot.
And by the way, if you think we are apes, you just might be one. Humans are apes! LOL talk about
okay now i get it You have no idea what constitues a new species. You would rather remain ignorant of what the theory states and the definitions that it relies on. I am done as you have no desire to actually learn something
Well done for trying and managing not to reduce yourself to his vitriolic level - your right, he/she doesn't understand the biological classification or its relationship to evolution or even the history of the science. I get the sneaky suspiscion that he's reading list won't help him in this regard.
I'd love to see these old books or manuscripts with changes in species over time outlined so plainly. Although I am somewhat surprised they managed to survive the extensive religious indoctrination over the centuries - say like the Spanish inquisition? I somehow think this would have been heretical at the time, considering that most Christian doctrine stipulates that God created all animals as they are now all over the planet.... Unless he's talking about some ancient cultures, of course - which will be the first I've heard of it and I watch and read quite a lot about ancient cultures. But managed to miss that one somehow. Who knew!
Points for effort and patience mate :)
What about evidence that has been Suppressed due to economical, political reasons. What I don't understand nothing was brought up the key factors for the confusion of the Scientific process. This Documentary forgot about liars, conspirators and very corrupt individuals who would have the money and the means to suppress great technologies which would be discredited for economic sense. I like some of the Baloney question, but there is huge flaw in his logic.... the flaw in not acknowledging the innate corruption of Human Beings.... What I love is how he takes the same positions has Conspirators... this Documentary does so by shutting the mind of possibilities... Possibilities is what makes like worth living. All science is bias, and is based upon certain data that Human Beings create... if science data was manipulated and giving to other scientist to duplicate how could you prove the possibilities that it could work. Like the data suppression from Pharmaceuticals about Prozac, but if you are a Doctor or a Scientist you can't be wrong? I am not skeptical of the scientific process I am skeptical of the Scientist who apply the scientific process and then claim a certain truth because MONEY was the driven force behind collecting the data. We fail to see that MONEY IS THE TRUE corruption of the Scientific Process and Skeptics should be skeptical of that more so... I can't believe that was not more of an focus on that problem regarding the Scientific Process... MONEY... Ladies and Gentlemen... So as soon as you have a Company who is doing research where money is involved there will always be bias within the Scientific Community even among the most reputable of Scientist.... This Documentary needs more serious thought than just regurgitating Scientific Hypothesis...
yeah but a single human or even group of corrupted humans cannot change the totality of human knowledge where thousands of entire lives have built up the evidence of science, my point is your right but when you do research you just cover many peoples or groups work in that field or discipline as many as you can find to come up with the concept of what the totality of human progress is within that discipline your researching. it becomes corrupt proof. the one that stands out as having a opposite point of view and results compared to hundreds of others that all never met or corresponded tells you something is going on ,you can study corruption itself and see the symptoms.
i never wanted to be an atheist , for many years i researched the toatl human knowledge regarding different fields and disciplines and as a greater understanding began to emerge my ideas where forced to change in order to conform to reality. i am now an atheist. i wish i could live forever and not have to face my mortality and those i love but there is no justification for such non-sense. my thoughts and language used in my mind is not what is real , reality dictates what the truth is. however i learned conscious creatures are so much more valuable than if they did have an eternal life.
i used to think many years ago that i had a right to an opinion pretty much regarding anything thinkable now i know the truth yes what color wallpaper i like music movies any personal preference is a place i can have an opinion, but when it comes to how things are in reality, my own assumptions and expectations mean nothing and are worth nothing at all unless they conform to reality.
science is the only thing that has created progress for human beings going back to cave dwellers. i9 mean a larger view of science which means how reality works, this can include anything empirical as well as logic firmly based on repeatable evidence they any can perform tests on with any per-conceived notion will get the same result as anyone else performing the experiment. this is evidence. evidence is not " i feel the presence of god" evidence is not" i look at the universe ,and see there has to be a creator" this is language in the brain forming symbols and creative constructs oppositte of evidence the human mind can invent superman gods villians myths but reality is so much more intricate detailed and breath taking.
a human being has to be able to differentiate between thoughts in their head and what is reality. what is your own specific methodology for this mandatory process? if your not doing this your living in a fantasy world.your not an id*ot , but if you don't do this your making yourself into one.
Well wasn't that special, I was hooked up until Shermer bought up deniers as his first point of contention. I could see it oozing from his frontal lobe, how he wished to inject that personal opinion into the conversation. Strange coming from the self-professed skeptic himself, seems a bit contradictory. I hate to be the one to tell Shermer that science also picks and chooses it's evidence to slant in specific directions. Empirical evidence has become so bastardized by politicisms, it can rarely be trusted by anyone anymore, now that's skepticism. That's why I made it a full two minutes before rejecting it.
there's a problem though, if you watched the rest you would have seen the context of what he meant within the whole concept. But more importantly it isn't Science that picks and chooses evidence, that is when someone goes outside the scientific method and uses another form of reasoning or bias or opinion or other motive. the implications of this are if there is a specific area your suspecting that kind of thing taking place you can research the entire body of knowledge yourself and find where it deviates (carry on with the scientific method)
i hate to be the one to tell you this but you've fallen prey to exactly the same things you accuse Shermer of.
You neglect to notice that everything you say is mere opinion as well...you give us no reason or evidence to support your claim that it's all bastardized and politicised...youre also dismissing Emperical evidence for reasons that make me think you don't actually know what Empirical evidence is...you might want to google it.
You say it can't be trusted but I see no reason why not...The only people I ever hear saying that evidence can't be trusted are people who have had their pet theories/beliefs debunked.
Thank you so much o wise one, I guess we are both full o it then! BTW, don't presume that I have no knowledge of simple terminologies, you just show yourself to be pedantic!
It doesn't take a fantastic amount of wisdom to google something and make sure what you're saying makes sense.
i'll take pedantic over full of it any day.
I respect much of your posts, as I've seen many; but we disagree here...esp in regards to how you're handling yourself. Many of your posts, you're much more modest, but we all get nasty, here and there. But, look at this. You display the same exact thing, in your op, about someone googling some simple term.
For some reason, my password doesn't work, or i have lost access to that acocount. But, I'm Rodney Bresch; and we had a very extensive debate, regarding what yall are touching on...on that thread.
You might have gotten a few likes, at first, but i def continued on to make valid points. Look how it ended(even though it ends in the middle, to confuse everyone SeeUat Videos? lol).
In shortEvery facet of our social existence, is corrupted. To think science isn't...well we'd just have a difference of opinion on that. Tell me this. If there was someone burying evidence, outside of hearsay(which there is from some "credible sources, as our debate uncovers), how would you present it, evidence for it?
Without positive evidence, the best you can do is speculation which is exactly what you are doing. You are presenting your cynical beliefs as facts without any proof whatsoever. The value of what you are saying is exactly zero.
Not sure what you would call proof. As was hinted at, this isn't something you get to get to test over and over again, to get an exact measurement of; but rather step back, and look at the pattern unfolding. Why do people think "science" can't be corrupted? Look at how twisted the rest of the world, that science exists within, is.
You clearly do not understand science. Your post is riddled with your own hypothesis, without evidence or even probability on your side. Science is combatted with other science.
probability? evidence? what about millions upon millions of dead people and more to suffer....? Shall we bring up isolated incidents? Because, there are more than enough to pick from.
If you read Anon's and my debate, you'll see some of the points i've made...such as: The publish or perish mentality is increasingly getting worse. But, science itself, like every other facet; is increasingly turning into a racket...similar to how even church did. Much of the money to fund research, is paid by tax dollars. Then, the publishers of journals, take the results, and sell them back to us for exorbitant fees. So, we pay twice. Similar to how we subsidize many corporations, and then pay for their products on the other end. In this system, even the clean scientists, are getting screwed, comparitively. But, their are many conflicts of interest, nad more to it. Just believing that science hasn't been tainted or that the problem doesn't exist, won't make it go away.
You are proving the point of the documentary. Evidence? You really should shift to reality.
Evidence of what? That science has been tainted, as every other facet of society? I could provide you with alarming stats, regarding how much money the us spends(our tax dollars are subsidizing the world's largest arms industry) compared to other countries on national defense; and how many body bags we've zipped up...esp of enemies. If you're looking for links, just ask. What are we unclear on. I've come to find, that most have put google to use, and are already aware of what i speak....whether they'd admit.......well. Will it "prove" the MIC esists? You can't use the scientific method, for everyting....sometimes we still have to rely on instinct and def or "common sense".
Are you arguing that all science is tainted and therefore not to be relied upon ever? Is there corruption in this world? Yes, of course. Does that mean we should not trust a single thing in this world or is it better to examine and find proof of exactly where the problem is? It's lazy to say science is corrupt because it isn't. More corrupt, if you want to go with probabilities, is people's unfounded opinions and sweeping declarations that science is corrupt. You mention the military/defence and dead people but that doesn't prove a thing about science being corrupt. Political decisions are often not motivated by science - that's a different thing altogether. You are confused.
I outlined, how science has increasingly become a racket; and that the citizens(and scientists), are being screwed over by publishers. You also see this, in academia; in certain cases. School teachers author books at their normal salary, and publishers turn around and make a killing off of them. That bothers you, none?
I mentioned the MIC, because it is quite possibiliy the most massive lie told, and has been widely accepted for decades. So, they've convinced us, that investing in their mass murdering international criminal enterprises, is ok; what else has gotten by us. You'll say that trillions of tax dollars, and piles of dead bodies, have zero value; I'm sure.
I didn't say "all scientists". I specifically say "clean scientist"(you're not even trying...that's my "proof"). It's just like in politics, or looking at our police state. They're not all bad, but there are huge issues and these systems are fostering "unethical behavior", and basically we need overhauls of many systems...and i'd say to the meta-system, that politics has become so infused in.
And science def affects politics, but usually only when politicians can profit off of it. Monsanto and many other corps, have some of the best lobbyists in the game; and are def using their version of science, to bolster their cases. The method, is like any other tool. It can be used, inappropriately...and is and has been, doesn't mean it always is or has been(i never said that...once). But, to assume, that just because some "scientist"(or even group of) says something is correct....is just like bowing to high priests or popes, esp as corrupt, as our world is. We need to make many changes.
Annoying, because it’s really obvious…just as the MIC is. Don't listen to me, though. Why is the MIC relevant, even beyond my prior point? Have you heard Ike’s farewell address? Well, apparently the nation never got his grave memo about the potential, of misplaced power, over the MIC(as even ike couldn’t have imagined how disgracefully wasteful and destructive, it’s become…I’m sure).
But, are you aware of what his other major point of contention was, in his last words, as pres? He says, “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.” These were the only 2 times he used the word grave, in the speech. Go listen to it. He delves into more of what should be undeniable(esp how pervasive money and politics have become), in this bassackwards world. We didn’t listen to either of his grave warnings. I don’t think I’m the confused 1. Plenty of scientists have come forward, and tried to squeeze the elephant from the room…want some links?
It's like I could offer you plenty of "proof", that the military establishment exists; and has been robbing americans of enormous amounts of tax dollars, while destroying much of the world. It can't be "tested. It's something that you have to decide, for yourself, and far from enough are making the correct choice...as the world burnss But, there are many conflicts of interests in the scientific community/politics. Just as there are many in every facet, like on wallstreet/politics, the media/poltics. Shall i go on?
We know politicians are doing many dirty things, we can't "prove"(esp without investigative control). Does this mean, we should do nothing?
no but we shouldn't go about presuming what we can't prove just because we can't prove it...that way madness lies.
Re: politicians' dirty deeds. There is not much that CAN be done unless you prove it. You can vote based on your suspicions and cynicisms but that doesn't make your suspicions fact.
LMAO; Thanks for that, that was pricelessly put: Hats off to you Sir!
The fact that you didn't bother to watch and consider the video speaks volumes about your inability or unwillingness to consider any fact or probability or logic that may contradict your unfounded or unproven beliefs. You are offering nothing more than a devotion to your own beliefs at all costs to critical thinking. You are operating on faith alone.
I just wonder what kind of "Baloney Detection Kit skills" are needed in this case:
1) Planets in our Solar System orbits gravitationally with DIFFERENT orbital velocities around the Sun as the gravity center, according to the celestial laws of Keplar and Newton
2) Stars in the Milky Way galaxy orbits aroud the galactic gravity center with the SAME velocity compared to the center.
3) The supposed solution to this gravitational difference should be "dark matter".
4) But even if finding any "dark matter" this doesn´t and can NEVER explain the orbital and gravitational difference anyway.
Take THAT "Science and Critical Thinking"! Come up with a kit to solve this insolvable contradiction before solving all other possible baloneys.
I am glad somebody else noticed. It's as if the stars in a galaxy were printed on a sheet of something and that sheet were spinning around the center keeping the suns in their relative positions and the planets of each sun were independent of that sheet and simply captured gravitationally by their suns. This is similar to a carnival 'Scrambler' where the six sets of cars are attached to a superstructure and each set of four cars can rotate independently of that superstructure.
Postulated by Nassim Haramein and now accepted by science, a black hole is found at the center of each galaxy but more importantly, the black hole is formed FIRST and the galaxy shape comes after.
In my opinion, if there were a Big Bang, the result could only be independent solar systems of suns and planets each moving away from the origin with complete randomness. Any organization of that randomness would have to be artificial, say from a Type VII civilization having complete control of the entirety of their environment and energy on a universal scale. And would our galaxy have 'arms' if the suns orbited the central black hole independently of each other and at their own speed? What would cause the 'Horse Head Nebula' to look like a horses head (at least from our perspective) naturally?
what fantasy world do you like to live in? may i join you? seems happy there :D
And the colors are better here.
excellent wheres the sign up sheet? lol
Hi Pascalore,
Thanks for your reply :-)
In my opinion "black holes" doesn’t exist. Galaxies are made electromagnetically and have 2 poles with funnels which goes into the galactic center where a "magnetic knot" formats everything in a cyclical and spherical motion.
Galaxies are not just "spiral galaxies" but they come in 2 different actual shapes and motions. One type with tight spindled arms and a very luminous center suggesting an inwards turning motion - and galaxies with a lesser luminous center, barred structures and more open spindled arms, as it is the case with our Milky Way, suggesting an outwards turning motion.
Barred structures which have a 90 degree turn connection to the galactic arms, cannot be made if talking of an inwards turning motion, so the overall motion in our galaxy is outwards, just like a 2 arm/(barred) garden sprinkler.
This explains how all stars moves with the same velocity - and it also explains that our Solar System once was made in the galactic center and has slowly moved outwards into its actual position.
The standard explanation of the Solar System is out of order because its formation shall be connected to the Milky Way motion and formation and not to "an isolated local cloud of gas and dust which suddenly decided to collapse".
This Milky Way formation of the Solar System also explains the different orbital motion of the stars in the galaxy and the planetary orbital motion in the Solar System.
And all of these observations are moot if we actually live in a holographic (computer generated) universe. I, too, don't believe that a black hole exists naturally but that it could be created artificially if you know how. Instead of just letting gravity manipulate you, you learn how to manipulate it.
I don´t like "computer generated Universe", but I get your point anyway.
The basical force of formation in everything has both a vertical and horizontal flow of electricity and magnetism.
If you imagine these flows meeting in a central sphere (like for instants in a galactic center) these flows twists everything in a so called Bennett Z-Pinch effect which formats gas and particles to stars and planets.
45 seconds in ...
I realized I couldn't stand listing to any more B.S. ...
Well at least you gave it a good try.
what do you mean? how is it possible to deny what was presented in the video? it is not any opinions all facts , just wondering where your coming from.
Rational thinking requires you to give up certainty, because there is always something you don't know. Most people are certain of something, and once they are confronted with facts that put that certainty into question they become angry or upset. For Pascalore, above, that moment came when Shermer brought up Bigfoot, which is a holy grail to some. It's ironic that this exact thing is addressed in the video - when you claim that the evidence has been destroyed or hidden, you still have no evidence, only hearsay and an unproven conspiracy. For the original commenter that moment seemed to come right about when Shermer starts talking about building a BS detection kit. When you know your closely-held beliefs fall apart under scrutiny, you don't want to look too close - you certainly don't want to intentionally develop the tools to do so.
On the other hand, I didn't like the video because Shermer comes off as smarmy and smug, and I think he's a poor choice as a spokesperson for critical thinking. A likeable charlatan will gather a bigger audience than an unlikeable person sharing our actual current understanding of reality.
Rational thinking does not require that you give up certainty, instead it is based on the realistic presumption that very few things are certain so we must still be able to reason. Rational thinking is a process that logically takes into account that (in general) there are things you don't know for certain. Rational thinking uses formal methods to specify the things you don't know for certain, and to apply an uncertainty metric to them. The result of rational thinking is (normally) uncertain, but the uncertainty can be analytically formalized and quantified. Rational thinking despite (usually inevitable) uncertainties is a scientific and mathematical field--there are scholarly books, professional society conferences and journals.
Bigfoot isn't the issue, it is those who hide or eliminate evidence and then claim that without that evidence there can be no claim. The same was true of the Panda Bear also evidenced by Lloyd Pye. Pt1 Lloyd Pye. 20,000,000 Years Of Suppressed History. - YouTube.
And anomalies are where the truth will be found and must be accounted for. Dismissing them is the error made most often.
you cannot hide evidence its impossible, maybe you can in some small circumstance but overall when you research each separate discipline or area of study it all comes together to show the truth. anything "hidden" will be revealed when researched, how can someone hide gravity? how can someone hide dna proving evolution occurred? how can someone hide the information about how your organs work, the information can be contained in another location and indeed many locations wiull points to the truth it simply could not be hidden.
Watch the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" and "The Light Bulb Conspiracy" along with those dealing with free energy as well as the inventor of the split-fire spark plug who also invented a plug that along with a small computer would allow a car to run on water, separating it into hydrogen and oxygen on the fly, with no exhaust waste except for water and getting many more miles per gallon of water than ever thought of with gasoline or diesel. In addition, investigate the 100 mpg carburater invented by a 25 year old who, after selling it to General Motors, "killed himself" in the desert. Apparently a million just wasn't enough.
The list goes on and on if you look. But it seems you won't open your eyes and I cannot close mine any longer. Peace to you.
I am the above Guest. An error in attempting to edit caused the 'Guest' label to be attached. By the way, General Motors re-engineered the carburetor and achieved 140 mpg.
Check out: TED x Part 1. "The Science Delusion" by Rupert Sheldrake.
(You won't believe what science doesn't know or admit to.)
The long version is awesome.
Kidding here ... but Obama seems to hide his history evidence pretty well.
Peace ...
anomalies means we don't understand that area yet and how it fits in with reality. but the anomalies cannot make other facts about reality false. there is no anomalies that will show evolution is false, there is no anomalies that will show the earth is really flat, there is no anomalies that will show Einstein is wrong ,anomalies that are found out add another piece of the puzzle but will not change what reality suddenly is.
there is not going to be an anomalies that show humans can levitate cars with their mind or that any religion that existed is even possibly true. the anomalies will not show that human thoughts constructed in language are as real as the outside world. there is no anomalies that will show humans can get information about reality without having to research or learn about science and what is stable enough to call fact.
Read the book "Dead Men's Secrets", by Jonathan Gray. A book review has been recorded by George Gorden. These are the anomalies I spoke of. Pieces of history ignored or purposely hidden to keep the general population world wide in the dark about the true nature of us and the world. Anomalies can make the conclusions false if not included in the discussion.
Here are some anomalies I kindly bring in for discussion:
1. Einstein's hypothesis that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Science has shown us Neutrinos go faster than light-speed.
2. Evolution says we came from apes.
Apes are hairy all over, they're 6Xs stronger (the attachment points of their muscles are made for more power) their bones are far thicker,
they have no voice box, their chest structure is upside down, they have an occipital bun that holds more brains in the back of their heads, their arms are far longer, their feet are more like hands, they can not grasp declarative language, & they walk on all fours.
Every new bone find of the missing link proves it to be far more apelike.
(Please, know they're showing us pictures, hand drawn concepts, this is not proof, but only a rendering of the imagination of a talented artist.)
They depict ape faces on human bodies walking upright in a savanna.
The huge differences that the two species diverged is unfathomable.
And from Human Genome Project (headed by Dr. Francis Crick) tells us that our closest relative has about 40 million differences in our DNA.
Plus we have about 68,000 useful DNA,
& apes have 130,000 useful DNA. (Almost double?)
Now wouldn't you expect that we'd have the most useful amount of DNA?
Yet, a piece of KFC chicken has 78,000 useful DNA,
& a mouse has 81,000 useful DNA.
We have 46 chromosomes & the great apes have 48 chromosomes.
(This doesn't make good common sense to any serious questions.)
All I'm saying is something is terribly wrong here for the naked ape upright walking humans, with thin bones, weak muscles, high forehead, a voice box, with large brains, & poorly designed feet is ... Dramatic.
I'm Not saying that evolution didn't happen, of course it did it's just that these are far too many differences to be explained away by merely saying Evolution (we came from apes) ... and that science is only missing one single missing link to connect the two species.
So maybe we did come from apes, but (I'm thinking) someone or something else must have had their thumb in the pie.
Just something to think about.
3. Yes, the earth is a sphere ... it's definitely not flat.
Peace ...
Could you please show me where "Neutrinos go faster than light-speed."? While this area of science is not my strong suit i believe you are wrong. If you are referring to the OPERA experiment they found errors in their measurements and came to a false conclusion.
Moving on nowhere in evolutionary theory does it claim we came from apes. We share a common ancestor with the modern apre. Also we are still apes. You state "Now wouldn't you expect that we'd have the most useful amount of DNA?" Why would you suspect that? Finally the 48/46 chromosomes has been explained. Science suspected a fusion of two chromosomes and they found it at #2. There is a pair of Telomere in the center . They usually only appear on the ends.
Yes, I was referring to the OPERA experiment but until I checked (just now) did I find it was their first & only conclusion (so far they didn't find any errors).
They simply suspect errors could be found in instrumentation or with the settings. This initial finding does have many doubters ... so I'm thankful for your alert reaction. A+
(Unfortunately, for me I picked that one, instead of other instances where Einstein was wrong.)
Please, explain how (without 20 missing links) could we possibly consider how one single missing link species could ever encompass the myriad of differences from monkey to man. Honestly, they can call it Lucy, Ricky, or Ethel (I will bet you) they will Never find that one Leakey monkey tale they've been telling & failing to prove.
They've been putting pieces together from far & wide (& it's my opinion) they will not stand up in the test of time.
I do believe (our having the most useful DNA) would be in the majority of most people's beliefs, so why not?
Okay, I'll give you whales, dolphins, & maybe an octopus.
The 48/46 chromosomes difference, science does know about it (but what we don't know is) how this happened.
(I know the center telomeres shouldn't be there.)
Did you know our 2nd chromosome is the longest known in any species?
Plus (according to The Human Genome Project) it has No useful function. (How did that happen?)
If that's natural selection at work it has done quite poorly & since (I can't) blame God, can I blame this on nature?
The basic question: Where did we come from?
So are we just some freak of nature/evolution or were we manipulated intentionally?
If the latter were true, then could it (kind of) explain why we have less useful DNA than KFC chicken, why science tells us we have numerous junk genes, why ONLY our species has over 4,000 genetic diseases, or how (despite crippled genes) we had such a speedy evolution?????
(For me, this does not this indicate a Survival of the Fittest, yet we're still here despite such weird anomalies.)
I find it curious (to add to all this) Dr. Francis Crick postulated that (according to him & a few colleagues) we have Over 20 odd parts in our DNA that have No previous human source & No earthy origin ... yet these traces are mysteriously found in our DNA.
I'd truly enjoy learning how that happened.
Peace & thank you for your healthy discussion.
.
Thanks for the reply.
It might sound like a cop out, but I am going to state it anyway. I at the monemt am too busy to properly address your questions in the detail they deserve. It is early tuesday where I am. You have my word that I will attempt to address your points Thursday sometime. I suspect someone else might address your points first. Either way I will enjoy continuing the talk then
As you wish ...
Monkeys and men have a common ancestor, we aren't descended from monkeys. How the heck can Dr Francis Crick declare that we have DNA that has no earthly origin, did he ever see non earthly DNA?
I'd lay odds some of those secret government projects already have.
It's really quite simplistic, if those DNA strands are not found on earth ...
where else could they have come from?
I don't need to convince you, I just want you to consider it.
Peace ...
They are found on earth, they didn't find them in space for sure. Unless these scientists analyzed every strand of DNA on the planet, they CANNOT affirm they are not from a earthly source and exclude mutations.
Short of finding DNA made of bases unknown on the planet, you can't say they come from space. If they are made of cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine and uracil, nothing forbids any random sequence in any strand of DNA or RNA on earth.
in short ... you can't entertain another thought beyond where you are.
Isn't that special
There is a huge margin between entertaining a possibility and affirming DNA came from an extra-terrestrial source. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to be confirmed.
I feel you wouldn't believe anything anyway, but check this out:
(If the web site doesn't go through copy & paste the next line.)
Scientists Confirm Extraterrestrial Genes in Human DNA Research
findings continues work of DNA Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Francis Crick
You're not likely to find this listening to your local news show.
I'd bet you wouldn't find this in bold type anywhere in America.
My life is busy, but I will continue to locate documents directly from the Human Genome Project if possible.
Been there but have not found it yet.
You could help too ... if you're truly open minded.
Checked it and I am VERY skeptical. Dr John McPherson who was closely associated with the Human Genome Project has no knowledge of Dr Sam Chang and his team of scientists that "discovered" ET DNA in human genes.
Look for "Junk DNA is still a mystery" by Linda Moulton Howe in your favorite search engine for an interview with geneticist Dr McPherson on the matter of ET DNA and the plausibility of its discovery.
The line between open minded and gullible is thin sometimes.
With that I am going back to bed, in any case,thanks for the fun read during my insomnia.
Copy & Paste is next line:
Scientists Confirm Extraterrestrial Genes in Human DNA Research
You will find many sites on Google
But more on Dogpile,
Peace ...
I found affirmations, claims and postulates in articles on sites like agoracosmopolitan, infowars and such but not a shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence from these "exo-scientists".
Looks like they used the technique of name dropping and quote mining (James Watson, Francis Crick) to make their article more palatable. Francis Crick never asserted that directed panspermia was a fact, just an interesting possibility.
Science can be more fickle than any of us wish it were (and not to throw you off track) but have you ever watched: "The Science Delusion"
or the very same lecture, but for America called: "Science Set Free" by Rupert Sheldrake, This is another case where what's allowed to be said in one country isn't allowed in others. Sheldrake was thrown off the TED talks because it didn't fit the mainstream dogma, this is why his talk was on TEDx (kinda closed minded for scientific discovery). Just stepping a crossed a boarder changes levels of information in too many fields.
Integrity is as important to me as it is for you, so we'll continue to search the HGP hoping science has allowed such things to be said more openly.
Well, it's not science if there is no evidence the mentioned research was actually done by anyone. If there is no tangible burden of proof whatsoever needed to believe an affirmation, I could declare that Humans have traces of Leprechaun and Fairies DNA and it should be automatically accepted without me providing any research papers that can be studied and tested by peers.
Is your point that because it got written in a dubious article on a random blog and it got repeated on a few sites that it became the truth? I am open minded but I want to see more proof than that, especially when it's supposed to come from scientists.
Attacking science instead of providing verifiable facts is an old trick. It's been done for centuries by religion, frauds and quacks. I wouldn't put too much faith in that avenue. TED talks are just conferences for the general public. I wouldn't base a "scientists against the truth" conspiracy on 1 guy (who believes in telepathy and consciousness of inanimate objects) not having his TED talk on the youtube channel of TED. A TED talk is not a scientific paper and shouldn't be viewed as scientific evidence for anything.
When you can't handle any more than you can handle ...
I suppose you just can't reply ... can you ... ???
And yea, that was meant tauntingly ...
to see life from an entirely differently prospective ...
it's okay, I understand ... you'll catch up someday ...
right brained understanding is different ...
especially when you've only been trained in left brained thinking & believing ... huh ... ???
Then they aren't scientists at all and have no right to use that term. Science doesn't allow to invent stuff with whichever hemisphere of your brain and declare it true.
Sorry about that, just checking to see if you were alive & kicking ...
thank you, for that line: "Science doesn't allow to invent stuff ... "
That gave me an idea to work from.
No one wants to appear gullible ... so would we prefer to being wrong with the support of a group than to be correct all by ourselves?
Some of these below are so bad even I can't believe them ,,,
(I'm sure you won't).
From our own experiences we realize corruption is in every field ...
so why should science be any different?
Sadly science has more than enough blunders & falsehoods.
The lead message should give you enough info to look them up & please, debunk as many as you can.
Former Pro-GMO biotech scientist admits GMOs are not safe.
NASA scientist admits chemtrails.
CDC fraud, scientist admit they omitted data linking MMR vaccines.
NASA climate scientists had claimed 2014 was the warmest on global record ...
Climate scientist admits to lying ...
NASA admits that winters are going to get colder ... much colder ...
New Scientist magazine admits modern temperatures are not unprecedented.
FBI admits using flawed scientific evidence in trials.
Pro-vaccine PhD immunologist admits no scientific merit for immunology.
Stephen Hawking admits Intelligent Design is Highly Probable.
Head of CDC admits mercury in vaccines can cause autism ...
Nature, admits scientists suppress criticisms of Neo-Dawinism
(to avoid lending support to Intelligent Design).
Merck senior scientist admits vaccines contain cancer causing viruses.
Monsanto employee admits there is a Dare to Publish a scientific study against big biotech ...
Harvard scientist finds minor errors in STAP cell report.
Lockheed Martin scientist says there really are aliens.
Dutch psychologist admits made up research data.
CDC Whistleblower admits omitting data.
Conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2009 scientists admitted cooked books for media claims.
Scientist admits faking stem cell data ...
Scientist admits (Obama) Green Jobs was a myth ...
The BBC admits some bad science reporting on alternative medicines.
Professor admits to faking AIDS vaccine to get $19M in grants.
Psychologist admits faking dozens of scientific studies ...
Hilleman explains how Merck’s insistence on producing vaccines and
rushing them to market caused him and the rest of the corporation’s
scientists to release vaccine concoctions that they knew contained
deadly viruses and diseases, including the monkey virus.
(But if one asks questions about vaccines they're anti-science?)
Scientist Admits To Study Of Roswell Crash Debris!
(Confirmed by FOIA Document)
Scientific community admits atoms were completely made up (???)
(I have to say: This is much too difficult for me to believe.)
The New Scientist admits political bias. (Then that can't be science.)
1 in 12 Belgian medical scientists suggests that Flemish medical researchers to having made up or massaged data.
Texas scientist admits falsifying results.
The EPA's science problem.
Indiana University student researching the molecular physiology of diabetes admitted to a string of misconduct -- falsifying data ...
Top scientist finally admit abortion-breast cancer link.
Baird admits Tories cut funding to NRTEE scientists.
Researcher admits to fraud in grant data.
NASA is the first to admit they did not go to the moon due to scientific inaccuracy & Van Allen Belts. (???) (Is this inadvertent mistake?) Sincerely hope this isn't true! But how can we explain how with 1969 technology & in one of the most intense periods of radiation from our sun added to this, how could those astronauts have survived?
I don't like having to put my beliefs in trust mode.
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . .
investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor
each of them is fragmentary at best
Scientific community admits to animal consciousness.
Inventor of Protandim, Admits Science is for Marketing.
Dr Michio Kaku admits government weather control on CBS news (experiments scientists are doing).
Yes, the above is debatable based on source, but you do actually believe scientists will admit their failures so easily in news journals or for those articles to be peer reviewed as bunk? Some are caught lying, while some barred from receiving grants for life. And the reason is because there are liars & frauds in all fields, with no deviation.
Okay, here's where you believe one thing & I believe in some parts of evolution but not all.
Where the Precambrian period suddenly explodes without prior evolution totally flies in the face of Darwinian theory (yes Darwinism is still a theory) and the debate rages on in scientific circles.
See: "Firing Line 04 December 1997 G"
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in
either the present or the past (except in the imagination of
evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it.
The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal,
best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical
systems, but also in biological and geological systems --
in fact, in all systems, without exception.
This below should be an interesting read it's where Darwinism differs from others belief in Evolution because the first assumption of Materialism must be made to accommodate Darwinism.
(There are no clear winners here, only theories being debated.)
The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism (theory of evolution is convoluted) it's said to having evolved by the accumulation of micromutations through natural selection but ...having reasons is not the same as having real proof.
Where are the fossils before the Precambrian period, where's the transformational evolution of man in progress with lighter bones & changes necessary for our evolution?
They simply don't exist ... no matter how much you truly want to believe this, where's the real proof in that theory?
Sure there are minor changes to species of long bill short bill birds from the same species, this is where Darwin created his theory.
As I said, you'd need 20 missing links to make our transition.
Although Richard Lewontin wants the public to accept science as the only source of truth, he freely admits that mainstream science itself is not free of the hokum that Sagan so often found in fringe science.
As examples he cites three influential scientists who are particularly successful at writing for the public: E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Lewis Thomas ...
At one time I too wanted to believe science is all that & a bag of chips
it's just not! The fact is they are fallible, corruptible, & only human.
Science isn't all it's cooked up to be.
Voltaire wrote: "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."
And that threat is still lives with us today (only in a lower form) called keeping your job.
I'd wish science was infallible, can anyone prove Dark Matter or Dark Energy? No, it's just a theory to explain away a problem!
Last question: If I can admit where I'm wrong, why can't you make one concession in any topic?
Also see: "Brilliant Blunders"
(From Darwin to Einstein)
by astrophysicist Mario Livio
Peace ...
Many of your claimed errors in science are not new to me. They have been debunked as lies, quote mines and deliberate misinterpretations over and over. Anyone who wishes for the facts would discover that on their own. Also anytime someone projectile vomits such a volume of vague claims that mostly do not include the relevant names of these so far anonamous scientists and where these claims were origonally made is throwing darts in the dark hoping something sticks.
Even if all your claims are true. So what? All this would prove is that some scientists can lie or be wrong. Science is not based on what someone claims. Only what someone can prove and be repeated or observed by others. Just for kicks, who discovered these lies? Was it another scientist attempting to verify the claims of another? If so then that just shows the strength of the scientific method.
You ask
"Where are the fossils before the Precambrian period,"
They are out there try google.
"where's the transformational evolution of man in progress with lighter bones & changes necessary for our evolution?"
again the volume of fossils is staggering. The problem is every time a gap is filled deniers just point to another gap. Science will never find every fossil but that seems to be the only thing that would convince you.
" the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill,"
No it doesen't. Who is feeding you this crap? Total entropy will eventually happen yes. But the earth is not an isolated system. Evolution does not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. I question the intelligence and motives of anyone who can possibly make that claim.
"Last question: If I can admit where I'm wrong, why can't you make one concession in any topic?"
Wow you actually typed that. You might notice my tone has changed a little this post. The above claim is why. You deleted most of your posts where you were shown to be wrong. That infuriates me. Not only does it show that I and others wasted our time addressing your posts, but ruins the thread for anyone else who has similar questions.
Just baiting the hook ... try to calm down & try this on for size ...
What Does the Fossil Record Actually Reveal?
As a result of much work by archeologists,
over 100 billion fossils have been found, and we now have over 100
million fossils in our museums. Among all these billions, however, not a single clear ‘transitional form’ that Darwin and other evolutionists fully expected to prove evolution was ever found.
Evolutionists expected that there would be abundant fossils to reveal
gradual transitions among species as they evolved, but only fossils of
fully functioning life forms were found, showing creatures fit for
specific purposes, and fossils of transitions among these life forms
were never discovered.
Darwin recognized large gaps in the fossil record, but fully expected
abundant evidence for those gaps would be found as more fossils were discovered in the future. Moreover, Darwin considered that if such intermediate fossils were not found, then his theory would have been proven false.
However, now that our museums contain so many millions of fossils,
credible transitional forms between species are still woefully lacking,
despite many vain and transitory attempts to claim them. If he were alive today, Darwin apparently would have considered his theory of evolution unsubstantiated and therefore a failure.
Professional Evolutionists Say the Fossil Record Does Not Show Evolution
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in
the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips
and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not
the evidence of fossils … in any local area, a species does not arise
gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all
at once and ‘fully formed’.”
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.
In a 1977 paper titled The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Gould stated:
“The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change … All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
Stephen Jay Gould, The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History 86, 1977, p.22.
Gould further wrote:
“The absence of fossil evidence for
intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed
our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional
intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
Stephen Jay Gould, Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?, Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.
Finally, Gould said:
“We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to
preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view
our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to
study.”
Steven Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1982, pp. 181-182.
The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:
“Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just
because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics
seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998, pp. 101–102 (quoting Patterson’s 1979 letter).
In 2001, staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following:
“Given the fact of evolution, one would
expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one
ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the
paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in
just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly,
and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the
fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps
(saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a
puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the
gradual change one would expect from evolution?”
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 14.
David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote:
“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them …”
David B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution Vol. 28 (1974), p. 466
Paleobiology Professor Ronald R. West, Ph.D. said:
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the
fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because
it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the
fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
Ronald R. West, Ph.D. Paleoecology and Geology (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), Paleoecology and uniformitarianism, Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.
David Raup, who was curator of geology at the museum
holding the world’s largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of
Natural History in Chicago, observed:
“[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would … Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We
now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t
changed much. … [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary
transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”
David M. Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979), pp. 22-23, 24-25.
Even the famous ‘Lucy’ is no longer considered a missing link, but simply an ape. According to anthropologist Yoel Rak of Tel Aviv University:
“Lucy’s kind occupied only a side branch of human
evolution. A. afarensis evolved into the relatively small-brained,
large-jawed robust australopithecines but didn’t contribute to the evolution of modern people.”
Bower, B., Disinherited Ancestor: Lucy’s Kind May Occupy Evolutionary Side Branch, Science News Vol. 171, no. 15, April 14, 2007, p. 230.
The famous evolutionist Richard Leakey was quoted as saying:
“Echoing the criticism made of his father’s habilis skulls, he added that Lucy’s
skull was so incomplete that most of it was ‘imagination made of
plaster of Paris’, thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion
about what species she belonged to.”
Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3.
John Reader, the author of Missing Links, says:
“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table … the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present.
… but ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking
modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof
of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.”
John Reader (photo-journalist and author of “Missing Links”), Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802.
Anthropologist Dr. Tim White admitted:
“A five million-year-old piece of bone that
was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part
of a dolphin rib. … He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig’s tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or ‘Piltdown Man,’ the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the ‘earliest Englishman’. The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.’”
Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib, in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199.
The meaning of above quotes by leading evolutionists is obvious. Our
science textbooks that state evolution as fact based on the fossil
record have lied to us, and continue to lie to students. Billions
of fossils have been found, revealing only distinct, functional
creatures and no transitional forms, so provide powerful evidence for
creation of distinct species, and no evidence whatsoever for evolution.
No Fossil Evidence, No Problem?
Millions of transitional fossil forms were
expected to be found by evolutionists, but they never were. If
transitional forms ever existed then abundant physical evidence should
remain among billions of fossils already found, not one occasional ‘aha’
event after another with overstated claims that are later demoted and
disproved, as all widely touted ‘missing links’ have been.
The so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ is conventionally assumed to
represent the oldest time period of animal fossils, but shows the
majority of life on Earth suddenly appearing intact in the same time
period with no known predecessors, and mostly in modern form. If
living species did not naturally arise from non-life and transform from
one kind into another, then each kind of life must have been
intelligently designed and created.
In an attempt to explain away this overwhelming problem, many modern evolutionists have adopted a fanciful concept called ‘punctuated equilibrium’,
which is based on the idea that evolution did not occur gradually as
expected by Darwin, but instead occurred so quickly at certain points in
time that no evidence was left in the fossil record. In essence, then,
the lack of any fossil evidence to support evolution is declared as
evidence that evolution occurred but left no evidence. This type of
argument is known as circular reasoning (not the highest form of logic).
Rather than honestly declare the whole process a scientific failure,
the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ concept was created to hang on to the
evolutionary idea without even a shred of supporting evidence. Ideas
that have no physical evidence aren’t scientific theories, but
unscientific conjectures. Since there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support ‘punctuated equilibrium’, belief in it is unscientific.
Oh, look credited scientist with references ... how's that feel?
Peace
A quick visit to the "quote mine project" with your qoutes exposes them for what they are. Not only that, but your mining is terrible. In your own quotes Gould admits transitional fossils exist. He just claims they are rare.
look up your Ernst Mayr quote in context. the very next paragraph explains why transitional fossils are "rare". Also he states "rare" not absent so he too admits they exist.
The same goes for the rest of your quotes. I am not going through them all. Again you projectile vomit a wall of text.
Finally if I wanted to debate with those at "miracles of magic" I would go there directly. your entire post is taken from there. Including the non attributed part at the end. taking credit for the work of others is dishonest. I also feel that you did not actually read what you copied and pasted. So not only are you ignorant of the subject you are debating. You are also dishonest.
What the hell are you doing on Disqus anyway???
You don't discuss anything, your mind is frozen in place, & you'll never admit when you've been proven wrong!
Even when proven wrong by leaders and/or experts, reference to books & or articles, & what page it's on ...
oh no over the edge cries like a baby.
Well, boo who ... where's all your evidence ... dumba$$ ... ???
Beats me why knuckle heads like you take the cowards way out ...
when proven wrong ... you ain't man enough to stand up.
Instead ... you're a little baby crying & denying.
Go find you're mommy ... cause you ain't grown up yet.
Count me out of here trying to discuss openly
with another knuckle headed know it all like you.
Bye bye ...
Wow.
You just went full mcIntosh. never go full mcIntosh.
You have been proven wrong over and over. your answer is to throw your toys out of the pram. Well done. Do not let the door hit you on the way out
lol looks like you didn't notice the Mod tag beside his name before going nuts. Answer to your question : over the edge is moderating Disqus threads on Top Documentary Film and I am pretty sure you broke a few rules insulting him.
ByeBye indeed.
Sorry mate, don't have time and desire to read all that. Busy time of the year and I don't feel like discussing much online after a hard day of work outside. Hopefully, it will be of interest to someone else.
Let's agree that we disagree on how good and accurate science is.
Sure, I had the great pleasure of having a spirited discussion with you.
And just when I got to the good part ... it's okay ...
may peace & love always be with you.
Read a little bit more and the cited Dr Sam Chang that is quoted in many of these articles is believed to be a pure invention. I searched for DNA scientific papers from Dr Sam Chang or Samuel Chang and couldn't find anything remotely linked to E.T. DNA. The confirmation is on shaky ground when one can't even confirm if the main scientist behind the discovery really exists...
To start please search "Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly" in wiki (I know wiki is sometimes off but this article is very well sourced).
Next. I know I am being picky but there is no "monkey to man.". We share a common ancestor. There are mountains of evidence supporting what evolution claims. From archaeology to genetics to paleontology and so on. The strengh of a theory lies in its ability to not only provide evidence supporting its claims, but also in the inability to be falsified. Evolution has stood up to both criteria. I am sure you can point out multiple "gaps" in the evidence and maybe even point out past errors made. But the "gaps" keep getting smaller and the mistakes were caught by science.
"I do believe (our having the most useful DNA) would be in the majority of most people's beliefs" So what ? A majority of people believe in a sky god. But there is no way that most of them are wrong in their choice of deity. I am not swayed by what people believe. Only what they can demonstrate.
Finally while I admire Dr. Francis Crick. What he thought or claimed is not relevent to me. Only what he can prove then have others confirm. I also would like to see his claim of "Over 20 odd parts in our DNA that have No previous human source & No earthy origin" As I fear that could either be false or a quote mine. If you can point me to where I can fint that qoute in context I would appreciate it.
Well, it would seem, that you are indeed quite correct.
(Damn, why did I have to pick that one, to show where Einstein was wrong.) A+ to you.
Where's the proof that our species could possibility overcome a phenomenal amount of differences by only one missing link?
Mountains of evidence are always present before someone proved that the electric light bulb would work, A/C electricity was a waste of time until it became a reality, & despite (I say) manufactured evidence you dearly want to believe to be true (for me) it just can not logically account for the differences in DNA, but all you will hear is that monkey's are our closest relatives without the differences of: Hair no hair, voice box no voice box, our weak muscles & thin bones, to all the thick boned apes, upside down chest structure to our chest structure, no frontal lobe, high forehead, it's quite illogical no matter what massively funded scientific group wants to lead you into believing. In one attempt, they found some bones a 1/2 mile apart. You can believe anything you want to, it just that I'm not changing my opinion on this unless you have 20 missing links showing this progression. Science is fallible & the scientific peer groups have agendas (that I dearly wish didn't exist).
I apologize for disagreeing.
You won't want to believe this either ... because even I don't believe in some parts of this article, but we're talking about Dr. Crick.
Some following articles are a stretch. So here's the title:
Scientists confirm Extraterrestrial genes in Human DNA
Research findings continues work of DNA Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Francis Crick
Please know, I do believe in the evolution of our species to a point.
But considering that 3% of DNA is turned on, & 97% is turned off ...
should cause everyone to wonder: How Did That Happen?
I also realize, most scientists will believe as they were taught to believe, just like those believing in an invisible being in the sky.
Neither group can venture too far from their ingrained herd mentality.
And why is it that these 2 beliefs are the only possibilities to consider?
I'm saying try to expand our conscientiousness instead of limiting ourselves to one or the other thinking.
200 years from now, they'll be laughing at what we (including me) believe.
Peace ...
the video was factual and a person could only be angry or against it if they had some type of assumptions or expectations that were not met and then a thought came to them that caused an emotion. there is no folly in the video. reality isn't about certainty it does not exist just a human idea, instead we have approximations and indeed in some areas are down to some decimal points.there will never be some anomaly understood that disproves everything we have learned about science in the last 200 years the earth will remain a sphere (somewhat) evolution created us from a single cell, the earth circles around the sun , none of these will change ,reality is what IT is and we shut up and adapt or live miserably, the laws of physics are a dictatorship we follow or perish that is the problem with people they cannot differential between thoughts and reality. this video gives a specific methodology for differentiating between your thoughts and reality, the scientific method is the only way to connect with reality. we can arrange words and concepts in infinite ways coming up with any fantasy world you like, but this hurst us not helps us (unless your a fiction writer or fiction film writers etc. artist musician there areas that works) when we think about "reality" or "fact" or "truth" we have to have a methodology beginning at our own thought process to stay on track which will eventually carry into actions ,this video covers that, one can only argue it if they are changing it to mean something entirely different than is actually does. this is a sign of a poor thinking process.
its not about how convincing the presenter in the video is, it is the job of the human being to adapt to what is true not someones job to convince you of the truth. you either adapt to the truth or you get hurt because your assumptions and expectations will come back to harm you when they are false. science is the only thing we have that contains the truth because it gets rid of everything else, it is the only thing that has ever bettered the lives of human beings, it is the only thing that has ever made progress, look at the evidence.
You should have given it at least the 10 minutes I could stand before you knew how full their BS cup was. Such as Bigfoot. Without a body/physical evidence, it doesn't exist except there was a body a man had frozen in an ice chest in a block of ice. Lloyd Pye makes reference to it in his very informative video "Everything You Know is Wrong" found on YouTube. If they hide the evidence, then there is no proof. And, of course, all intellectual studies are controlled by grants, contributions (you hear it coming) MONEY and those who control the worlds money supply. Yep, I went there. And as Michael C. Rupert had said, "I don't deal in conspiracy theory, I deal in conspiracy fact."
yeah...saying you deal in fact and actually dealing in fact are two very different things.
Pascalore, Loved that old video tape of Lloyd Pye & wasn't that delicious to hear some truth? (Re: 20 missing links ... was funny!)
The repression of new findings (that would rewrite history & science) has corrupted the whole intellectual community with garbage knowledge. I agree 100%!