Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Scientist DESTROYS Atheism for 11 Minutes Straight.


Will Due

Recommended Posts

What do you think about the discussion in this video?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

What do you think about the discussion in this video?

They are idiots.

Science and scientists are not the enemies of truth. They strive to acertain universal truths about our universe.

God falls outside of that and their scope, because God is not in our universe.

 

Edited by Ell
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

What do you think about the discussion in this video?

 

Love it.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darwin did not even know that dna existed when he came up with his theory.  Let’s get real.  When Darwin did his work, people still practiced blood-letting.

Edited by Guyver
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The god of gaps.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could anyone discount the impact of dna upon evolution?  Yet…Darwin didn’t know that dna even existed.  Hello?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

What do you think about the discussion in this video?

Tucker Carlson is a scientist now?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern science knows that changes in allele frequency in populations is what evolution is.  Darwin didn’t know that.  He didn’t know that genes were comprised of dna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to Darwin about evolution is like asking Henry Ford to build a KTM dirt bike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to KTM, if you are 5 lbs, 2.26 kg overweight, you may need new springs on your dirt bike. The standard set up is too precise for your weight.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we want to believe an evolutionary model that doesn’t include dna? What?  Let’s go back to the Iron Age, perfect fire and smelting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to speak of evolution?  As a child, I rode a Honda trail 70 motorbike.  Now, I ride a 2015 KTM 500. This bike weighs two hundred fifty some pounds dry and makes over 50 hp stock. That Honda from the seventies prolly didn’t even make 10:hp.  But it was fun to cruise on. Now, if you buy a $12,000 KTM motorcycle, and you’re 5 pounds too fat, you should spend $1,200 dollars to re-do your suspension.  I’m just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am 6.0 feet tall and weigh 185 pounds (83.91 kg).  As you can see from the photo, I am on my tippy toes.  Why?  Because on this ride, I had not yet realized that the guy who owned the bike before me weighed 230 (104.33 kg) pounds, and had the suspension extra stiff because he was jumping the bike in the desert?!  So, reading and following the KTM owners manual has informed me that his settings do not work for me at all.  I am old, and I do t want to jump very high.  I want soft suspension.  So, I had to buy special tools and now, I can follow the manual and return the suspension to my specs, and have a good ride.  Without that knowledge, the former guys set up is killing me.  We never worried about this when I was a kid.  We just rode however the bike was set up.  But since these modern bikes like KTM can literally jump over two houses….the engineering and science behind it is precise.

Edited by Guyver
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When that bike is set up properly for me…the balls of my feet will be on the ground, not my tippy toes.  It is that precise.  This is man’s work.  DNA? Forget about it.  We don’t fully understand it.  Yes, we can use it effectively, but there’s a lot to learn about it’s origins and these are the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When science literature reads….”so and so is thought to have derived from so and so” that means science doesn’t know yet.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Read thread without Read. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

According to Darwin's theory of evolution, one species leads to another through natural selection one small step at a time.

But the fossil record does not indicate that. Between species there are "missing links".

What's up with that?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

A Read thread without Read. 

That raises an interesting question. The fossil religious record shows that the ancestral Millerite meme, having itself descended from earlier memes of the Protestant genus, rapidly evolved into a diversity of living memes like JW, SDA, and Sadlerism (doing business as the Urantia Book).

Was that evolution the result of some undirected natural process, or should we suspect divine guidance?

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eight bits said:

That raises an interesting question. The fossil religious record shows that the ancestral Millerite meme, having itself descended from earlier memes of the Protestant genus, rapidly evolved into a diversity of living memes like JW, SDA, and Sadlerism (doing business as the Urantia Book).

Was that evolution the result of some undirected natural process, or should we suspect divine guidance?

I suspect Will's off his meds. 😵

  • Like 3
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, eight bits said:

That raises an interesting question. The fossil religious record shows that the ancestral Millerite meme, having itself descended from earlier memes of the Protestant genus, rapidly evolved into a diversity of living memes like JW, SDA, and Sadlerism (doing business as the Urantia Book).

Was that evolution the result of some undirected natural process, or should we suspect divine guidance?

 

7 minutes ago, Piney said:

I suspect Will's off his meds. 😵

 

Did you guys watch the video? It's only 11 minutes long.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

According to Darwin's theory of evolution, one species leads to another through natural selection one small step at a time.

But the fossil record does not indicate that. Between species there are "missing links".

What's up with that?

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

According to Darwin's theory of evolution, one species leads to another through natural selection one small step at a time.

But the fossil record does not indicate that. Between species there are "missing links".

What's up with that?

 

 

Evolution isn't just one thing (one small step at a time); it's driven by several factors: natural selection, random changes in gene frequency, genetic flow and  mutations. Evolution can be slow and steady or fast and jumpy, depending on things like how the environment changes and how big the population is.  New species form in different ways, sometimes slowly over time and sometimes quickly.  The fossil record shows us some of this, but it's incomplete. To your question in part, the incompleteness of the fossil record stems from the rarity of fossilization itself, requiring specific environmental conditions that minimize decomposition.  I suggest going to the link and learning about this yourself. 
 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/
 

 

 

  • Thanks 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

 

Did you guys watch the video? It's only 11 minutes long.

 

 

I haven't had my coffee, vitamins or breakfast yet.. 😬

  • Like 3
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 

Evolution isn't just one thing (one small step at a time); it's driven by several factors: natural selection, random changes in gene frequency, genetic flow and  mutations. Evolution can be slow and steady or fast and jumpy, depending on things like how the environment changes and how big the population is.  New species form in different ways, sometimes slowly over time and sometimes quickly.  The fossil record shows us some of this, but it's incomplete. To your question in part, the incompleteness of the fossil record stems from the rarity of fossilization itself, requiring specific environmental conditions that minimize decomposition.  I suggest going to the link and learning about this yourself. 
 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/
 

 

 

 

Did you watch the video?

If you do, you might learn something. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Did you guys watch the video? It's only 11 minutes long.

About half. Watching Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson discuss science made me nostalgic for Cheech and Chong, so I bailed.

  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.