Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Noxot]

just because you can explain the effects of evil does not mean you have discovered the entire reason of why things are the way they are. something is either true or it is not and a persons belief and his limited logic are by no means the same thing as the full truth of reality.

imo it's a very dangerous thing to try to reduce morality to the level of biology. I know they play well together to a certain degree. atheism has possible dangers because it's got a sense of nihilism to it.

p.s. i'm so sick of atheist thinking that our ideals are merely based in "belief", you guys have no idea what I have experienced in my life which lead me to come to the conclusions that I have come to.

 

[Noxot]

What do you mean by "modern fossils"?

Fossils are old by definition.

you know that there is more than one way to fossilize something right? you probably have a ton more knowledge about this kind of stuff than I do. fossils don't have to be old as far as I know.

i'm not saying it's true because I don't know but I had recently heard this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So does "evil".

Nope, once again, one does not need a god to realize that Hitler was evil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

just because you can explain the effects of evil does not mean you have discovered the entire reason of why things are the way they are. something is either true or it is not and a persons belief and his limited logic are by no means the same thing as the full truth of reality.

imo it's a very dangerous thing to try to reduce morality to the level of biology. I know they play well together to a certain degree. atheism has possible dangers because it's got a sense of nihilism to it.

p.s. i'm so sick of atheist thinking that our ideals are merely based in "belief", you guys have no idea what I have experienced in my life which lead me to come to the conclusions that I have come to.

If you had some evidence atheists would not need to assume that all that you have is belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you know that there is more than one way to fossilize something right? you probably have a ton more knowledge about this kind of stuff than I do. fossils don't have to be old as far as I know.

i'm not saying it's true because I don't know but I had recently heard this.

The "electric universe"!! ROFLMAO!

And yes, by definition a fossil is preserved prehistoric evidence of life.

Can you link an article? Videos of fringe groups are not reliable at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, once again, one does not need a god to realize that Hitler was evil.

Are you sure?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you sure?

Yep.

Why do you think that a god is necessary? That implies rather poor morals on your part.

 

[Noxot]

The "electric universe"!! ROFLMAO!

And yes, by definition a fossil is preserved prehistoric evidence of life.

Can you link an article? Videos of fringe groups are not reliable at all.

I don't know of any articles. i did not know someone writing an article would magically make something legit. sounds irrational to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know of any articles. i did not know someone writing an article would magically make something legit. sounds irrational to me.

Videos by crank groups are never considered to be legit. And your inability to find an article supports that conclusion.

 

[Noxot]

Videos by crank groups are never considered to be legit. And your inability to find an article supports that conclusion.

I did not look but I will keep an open mind to experiments and theories that people have since I want to learn what is real and I refuse to assume that the mainstream has everything right already which would be a mistake knowing how much "science" fails. i'm not super into this kind of stuff like you are so I had expected someone like you to be scientific about such things rather than to react as you did.

btw what makes them a crank group? never to be considered to be legit by who? ideologues who have faith in mainstream science and scoff at things they don't hear out or consider?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know of any articles. i did not know someone writing an article would magically make something legit. sounds irrational to me.

If it is a scientific article it has been examined by a peer review board who check it for internal consistency and adherence to the scientific method and published in a journal which all professionals in that field read regularly so that interested persons can re-examine the data or re-perform the experiments and draw their own conclusions. That's as close to "legit" as it gets.

 

[Gene2memE]

you know that there is more than one way to fossilize something right? you probably have a ton more knowledge about this kind of stuff than I do. fossils don't have to be old as far as I know.

i'm not saying it's true because I don't know but I had recently heard this.

50 seconds in and there's already a MAJOR mistake. Fossilization doesn't take "no fewer than 10,000 years".

Paleontologists have known for better than 75 years that fossilization can occur extremely rapidly in some circumstances, sometimes in just a few days or even just hours. This is known as 'flash' fossilisation.

There's even a whole branch of palentology - taphonomy - that deals with fossilization.

So, claiming that 'electric fossilization' is a thing is ludicrous. Even worse, the presenter almost immediately equivocates petrification and fossilization. Petrification is a specific type of fossilisation, but he's using it as a blanket replacement term. This suggests that he has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not look but I will keep an open mind to experiments and theories that people have since I want to learn what is real and I refuse to assume that the mainstream has everything right already which would be a mistake knowing how much "science" fails. i'm not super into this kind of stuff like you are so I had expected someone like you to be scientific about such things rather than to react as you did.

btw what makes them a crank group? never to be considered to be legit by who? ideologues who have faith in mainstream science and scoff at things they don't hear out or consider?

I was "being scientific". You made a claim and used a video. I asked for a better source.

What makes them a crank group is that they deny science and cannot support their claims with peer reviewed science. Peer review is a relatively low hurdle that new ideas have to go over. If one can't find peer reviewed support for an idea, and that group denies basic science one can safely conclude that they are cranks. But you can read more about believers in the EU here:

Electric Universe - RationalWiki

 

[Noxot]

I was not making a claim so much as I was inputting information that is not common in order to see what people would say about it. some of the things those EU people say are interesting.

I don't have to believe their entire theory to consider that electricity might have played more of a role in some things than is commonly considered. also of note, it's not like the EU people have said one thing to help express their ideas, they have made numerous videos that talk about various things. i will have to look for people who have peer reviewed EU stuff and is against it, if people are not doing that then I wonder why? they should if they care about truth. this is the year 2017, videos are a thing. scientist should know that.

yeah I know that some universities have scams going on and those people hate peer review because it revealed their scam. c.f.

I have heard some strange things in my life. like that certain types of radiation experiments have transmuted matter into many different kinds of matter. I know there are processes that can alter matter from one thing to another and so electricity transforming matter does not seem that far out and extreme to me. and I dunno if humans know everything there is to know about electricity because if they did then they would be able to explain thunderstorms 100%... and last i read it seemed thunderstorms still had some mystery to them.

you know, since you guys understand this stuff... you should make some YouTube videos disproving all this false information being released. if you think you are up to it and feel like doing something for the community.

what is interesting here is how those electric discharges look like some of the stuff on the moons and planets in our solar system. that does not mean I have to agree with the EU theory, it just means there does appear to be similarities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please, there is no "EU theory". To be a theory the concept must be falsifiable. EU people do not have a way of testing their ideas. All they have are ad hoc explanations and those are worthless in the world of science.

 

[Ronald]

With no God, we have no absolutes. There is nothing to determine morality. All you'll end up with is moral relativism -- what's good or right for one person or group is not necessarily good or right for another. The Caananites sacrificed their babies to Moleck on red hot iron or stone altars. That was morally acceptable to them. A person with no absolute right or wrong law/ moral code, cannot really judge or determine what is good or evil. They draw the line where they choose. So a person can say I'm not evil, I only lie, steal and get a little drunk and roudy sometimes, but I don't murder people. Then a murderer can say, I'm not really evil, he was a drug dealer and messed around with my wife, I wouldn't kill anyone else. A serial killer could say, at least I'm not Hitler. Of course Hitler can say the Devil made me do it. Without God, there are no moral absolutes, He defined them. The ten commandments were given for this reason, so that we would know what sin means. Before that, where there was no Law, there was no sin according to men.

 

[Noxot]

so I was wondering. since we can't test the big bang is it then not a theory? or is the big bang theory falsifiable?


p.s. atheist like stefan molyneux have ideas such as "universally preferable behaviors" that make a moral system without there being a belief in God. SM thinks of objective morality as real but he does not believe in a god.

also people like mark passio basically break sin down into "theft"

 

[Subduction Zone]

so I was wondering. since we can't test the big bang is it then not a theory? or is the big bang theory falsifiable?


p.s. atheist like stefan molyneux have ideas such as "universally preferable behaviors" that make a moral system without there being a belief in God.

Why do you think that the Big Bang theory was not tested?

 

[Noxot]

Why do you think that the Big Bang theory was not tested?

I think I would hear the bang if someone recreated it lol

 

[AV1611VET]

To be a theory the concept must be falsifiable.

What falsifies set theory?

What falsifies thermodynamics?