Good job here. I took 5 bio classes in college. Comparative anatomy was best but we did not get this much detail. This fills things out very nicely. Thanks.
If you reject the supernatural then confirmation bias confirms that only natural processes are responsible for everything. However if you accept the supernatural then you find when the supernatural ends and the natural begins.
Schools and churches make morons of us all. It is our solumn duty to emancipate ourselves from fake knowledge and learn how to think. Mathematics and science are all we have. Some history and Shakespeare are also good.
Leslie Stahl got in someone’s face and proclaimed “There is no Hunter Biden laptop” She drank the kool aid. No trust in her anymore. As a journalist she should stay open to the possibility of all opinions. She was adamantly opinionated and wrong. No trust.
In the late 1800s, early 1900s & before, the artists were held back by the 'art world'- the Church, the Academies strict guidelines. Today, it is the gate keepers holding everyone back- holding back not only the artists, but also the viewers. It reminds me of a comment I saw in Superbowl videos last year, "The Superbowl nobody wanted." We are given trash, with dung & urine & grotesque distorted figures... & most of all $$ art... tied to our cheapening of humanity celebrity obsessed culture (which is fully a delusional value system, that misses true human value, & thus TRUE art value). I saw a top collector video recently, & he said 'data' selects the art... which means art that managed to be worth $$ because it recently made $$. THEN, I see youtube channels on contemporary art, who say they use 'data' websites to compose their top 10-20 lists... based on sales... to whom? To collectors who select art as investment prospects, based on data. And what has earned $$? Things like offensive art that gained controversial notice- because it is disgusting, AGAINST the way of the people (although diverse); (as just one example of how HORRIBLE art is treated as cream of the crop, to be held at the top, as a delusion the art world is handing us). What is the new 'ism' of our day? it is this: Shared psychotic disorder (folie à deux); shared delusion. I just saw a big NEW show in Hong Kong, to 'debut' Claude Monet’s water lillies. Why Tell me anyone in the public who would raise their hand, if asked, if this is the art they most want to see? No one is raising their hand art world. It is not the best art. It is the famous art. The money art. You gatekeepers, it's time for you to have a positive revolution; & do something truly valuable for all of us. Let's forget name dropping, & $ data. SHOW US ALL WHAT IS TRULY GOOD OUT THERE. Quit blaming your victims. Love you all, especially fellow art people. Blessings. Love wins.
I'm sorry, but after investing 20 years in sporadic painting, because I Love it, I have been thoroughly discouraged by this particular talk. I don't know why, but after clicking out of interest, I honestly feel like I should never bother painting again. I hope I will feel differently - tomorrow is another day, after all. 😢. Wtf in what this clearly lovely man is saying is so off putting? I don't know, but it is.
Darwin never used the word evolution. You do. There was no animal life preexisting the Cambrian Explosion. Darwin would conclude he failed . You are conflating evolution with natural selection. Get over the religous zealotry. You actually use the term “believe,” you don’t vote on “truth.”
You might consider reading Darwin. Most people who don't appreciate his work do not read him. If you are actually human and are curious to learn you'll find Darwin is most fascinating.
Great! But I feel sorry for those who need it explained. Brilliant actor-singers who remain in character supported by incredible pianist. What became of their magnificent talents? They deserve the best. No 'if'--I loved them!
If you have not already selected a camp between religion or science, the confrontational language used by the speaker does little to move you to his side. I found myself responding to his intellectually chauvinistic attitude more than the reasonable information he had to give. Science is supposed to be apolitical, but this seemed more like propaganda than true edification.
I had an encounter with God 3 times in my Life. One time is literally impossible to explain, unless there is literally an X-men gene that allowed a Christian sister to read my mind. NO ONE, EVER, can explain how a Christian sister told me how I was feeling and thought about myself. It was a specific thought and feeling, I NEVER shared with anyone. It wasn't something that I was projecting or anything like this. These were very specific words, as if someone opened up my brain and told me EXACTLY what I was thinking. So please spare me the idea it was all in my head, it wasn't, sorry for your disbelief. You have to understand that Christians ACTUALLY have supernatural events happen in their life that prove Jesus. I am sorry you want to dismiss this, but the fact is this world is not just plain and all we see. There are people who ACTUALLY experience the unexplainable and evolutionists are just putting their head in the sand each time this is brought up. Maybe if you all humbled yourself, not in a "God you do this, or I won't believe in you" (that isn't how God responds, sorry) you all would have an encounter with the Living God as well. In the end, I have nothing to lose when I die. I can't say the same for those who continue to want to put their head in the sand and refuse to look at what Christians present. Without Faith, you will never find God.
If there is no ontology, no pattern, then how did it all randomly arrive to be fine tuned and mathematically accurate. If mathematics and natural law produced and guided it that does not explain their origin. There is speculation in the new physics that all is consciousness, matter being condensed consciousness with mind a play of ideas on substance, or consciousness. Mind emerging with quantum events is plausible.. Evolution from this perspective would make sense. Consciousness emerging with quantum events would subject consciousness to the same limitations as mind which would appear to be inaccurate. Little wonder it is the hard problem.
It didn't arrive "fine tuned and mathematically accurate", if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. Evolution murdered a whole bunch of "not finely tuned and mathematically inaccurate" ATTEMPTS at evolution through its process of natural selection. One gene mutated incorrectly (and not in a finely tuned way) and that creature developed no legs. Then, it was eaten by a predator, and didn't pass on its genes. The basics of resource allocation (as a simple/quick example) shows why it would INITIALLY diverge. If a pool of (I'm OVERLY simplifying here) bacteria runs out of food, then natural selection would benefit those bacteria that mutated the ability to MOVE to find MORE food, thus creating the cause for a change in the genome, and those that RANDOMLY mutated the ability to move would excel at reproduction, and their genes would be passed on to future generations, thus leading to now 2 distinct and separate bacterial genomes. Hope that helps you out in your search friend.
If we accept the DNA of the monkey according to the environment at that time, diffenitly it doesn’t looks like the DNA TODAY. YOU MED RESEARCHERS, when they come to dead end create another similar idea to get the fund. Isn’t
Well a evolution speech which starts with Bushes knowledge of virology, Ronald Reagan, Trumps opinion on evolution, how many people read Henry Kissingers last book. At least we're enlightened on his politics if not evolution. I bet this guy is a barrel of monkeys at faculty parties.
@@Magulousmousit is not. How do you come to that conclusion? .you dont need religion to be a good person and have a good life. If you need religion to be a good person, well then you are not a good person at all. If you think life has no mesning without religion, it just shows how hollow you are and how indoctrinated you are.
Using “evolution” by itself is deceptive. What kind of evolution? Evolution by natural selection is on its last legs. However evolution is difficult to deny. Almost all interspecies evolution has to do with timing, not novel protein changes. There is no proof of entire groups producing novel changes of chromosome pairs in a manner that could produce a novel species.
Please do not leave us . Humanity needs your voice . I have lived long enough to see early exits . Be not afraid to carry on. CT (who you rhyme with) did it
This is absolutely hilarious.. listen so.. my guess is it works like this.. but it's definitely still true. But, we cant possibly know because we dont understand this yet, but this is my best guess.. which is definitely true. Like did a single person actually listen to anything this guy actually said!? 😂 Second.. ill bet my house.. this guy is a member of the Free Mason's.. why is that relevant.. well to all you Evolutionist.. and Atheist.. who worship Darwin. What is it the Romans say? If you have been proven a liar once.. everything you say is worthless. Point in fact.. actually truth. Charles Darwin was in fact a Free Mason. Free Mason's believe in a higher power or they willingly accept the punishment of Death. If Darwin was a Mason he believed in a higher power. Therefore, he was in fact not an Atheist. Actually, The Masonic Bible directly describes Atheist as vile idiots and unworthy as they believe what they are told. By thier famous misleader. What else do they say.. if your dumb enough to be mislead.. then be mislead. Wake up. Its simple. Watch this again. He literally repeatively says.. this is my (????) But, its definitely true. 😂 Bruh!? What!? I mean look at his smile the whole time he is saying this shit he cant even believe your actually this stupid!!?? 🤔
You compare your science with what you consider to be backwoods, unintellectual, Christian people..in fact you ridicule them. How about you arrange for a debate with Stephen Meyer or Hugh ross or James tour. What about the Cambrian explosion? There's countless evidence for micro evolution in the fossil record, and almost none for macro evolution. Major body types show up suddenly in the fossil record.
Evidence is not the same as Proof. It is only ''evident''. It is fairer to say that the CONSTRUCT of the theory of Evolution is ''massive''. The actual evidence... is stuff that's waiting to be interpreted.
Evolution has overwhelming evidence for its mechanism after the first cell was formed and few who have studied it would dispute most of the theory. No one agrees about how cosmic evolution cosmic chemistry… bumping particles produced … living conscious biology. No one has the first clue how Chemistry becomes conscious biology … and currently evolutionary theory does not help one bit. The hard problem of consciousness … how dead unconscious groups of atoms experience the taste of coffee the feeling of love The hard problem of life … if you define the first 9.5 billion years after the Big Bang a dead mechanical unconscious process … how … as soon as the Earth stopped being molten … did chemistry suddenly become conscious biology. The only fix? the Universe has never been dead or unconscious at any system level big bang plasma to Einstein. The Universe is alive and Conscious … how do we know . We know because it made you and I and this understanding … from just some waiting around and some clumping and cooling … Not a single human thought or scientific theory involved
Well genetic evolution does happen occasionally. For example, Mt. St. Helens has had a rapid evolution because the environment changed because of the eruption.
Yep. The book with the talking serpent, talking smoldering shrub, and the magic rabbi carpenter born of a union between a teenaged Hebrew virgin girl and a ghost is the final authority on all things scientific.
He is either knowingly deceiving people, or he is so uninformed that he shouldn’t even be a professor in a high school. First of all right in the beginning he uses switch bait language. Conflating the regular term theory with what scientific theory. He talked about the fossil record as showing gradually more complexity, while completely ignoring the Cambrian explosion as that is totally contradictory to what evolution would have predicted. All of the changes were so big and fast, and didn’t show slow progression. It’s why Stephen j Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, to explain the sudden changes instead of gradual changes. Then he goes on into the horse evolution which was proven false over 50 years ago. Then he claims that no modern bird has teeth, while there are birds that have teeth. On the talk of vestigial parts, he is either completely unqualified or misleading, as those bone are necessary to support the reproductive organs, and without those the animals would not be able to reproduce, and so they are definitely not vestigial. Is this the best he’s got? because it is ridiculously pathetic so far. If I was an evolutionist, I would be deeply embarrassed by this talk
I have read numerous times that Elstir was based to a large part on Whistler, or on a combination of several artists, but I don't think Monet was ever mentioned in that connection. Btw, Mr Burnham, Mme Verdurin marries the Prince de Guermantes, not the Duc of the same name. Gide was on the editorial board of the Nouvelle Revue Française, and rejected the book, the first volume being published at Proust's expense by Bernard Grasset. Gide then realised his mistake, and begged to take over publication for the NRF, and Grasset, I believe, was bought out of his contract with Proust, or graciously relinquished it.
Why is that so many (as in many commenters in this thread) need to be taken by the hand like little children and explained to, over and over, time and time again, in clear terms by thousands of scientists (biologists/molecular bilogists/evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, biochemists, botonists, geologists) who have spent cumulative lifetimes and careers, studying/debating/arguing/drawing careful conclusions of over a century of facts and physical evidence from all parts of the globe [ _is the Earth REALLY a sphere?_ ] within the context and framework of rational thought/the scientific method, only to have them plug their ears, close their eyes and hum while concocting ridiculously concvoluted and non-sensical streams of bullshit because they can't or won't accept reality? Operators are standing-by for answers.
@behr122002: isn't the scientific method the ability to question examine and repeat experiments in order to validate the conclusion as fact? You call people seeking answers "sad" when you only know ( accept) what you have been taught? Yes? You don't accept engineering in biology ( natural) yet aren't SCIENTISTS engineering food? Considering the vastness of the universe being the most intelligent on this rock don't amount to much. Does it? So why act so superior? No one is born with the knowledge one must acquire it ! no?
@behr121002: isn't that how you gained your education? You MAY be an expert in your field... But what other skills have you should yours ever become blunted ! Or will you have to acquire new knowledge? Have you ever heard ... Those who are first shall become last? Guess who said that!
@behr121001: you believe that random is the answer. But according to THE science it's a impractical idea! So which science is correct? Yours or math? I'm with math. Cause in second grade I learned that 1+1= 2 and you know what it has not changed. But yours has ! No?
@ behr121002: sphere! Not perfectly not always! But your superior attitude reasoned it's wasted on the masses! So one of them has FINISHED your incomplete explanation. Or maybe that was a secret.
