Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

[jono]

Who said Newton discovered gravity? We know it always existed, but he gave natural phenomenon a scientific understanding and mathematical understanding to increase our understanding of different forces.

Subjective results through our opinion based understanding and the objective is through our unbias thought process. Meaning if you have a subjective reasoning then you are always giving from your lenses versus the most unbias lense, because you are going to push your culture and behavior over everything. Subjective lenses are why a slave trade and cultural genocide exists, why religious persecution exists and much other things that have destroyed many lives.

Newtons theory has a lot of holes in it, and what exactly is gravity?
http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist



The ego cements theories in their mind as facts

Now do I agree gravity doesn't exist? Not necessarily......but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

I don't think you understand science. The very nature of science is the antithesis of this concept.

Also that guy didn't say gravity doesn't exist. He wants to look at better explaining what it is, which is the very nature of scientific research.

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

I don't think you understand science. The very nature of science is the antithesis of this concept.

Also that guy didn't say gravity doesn't exist. He wants to look at better explaining what it is, which is the very nature of scientific research.

I understand, premature assumptions with no evidence.

In my post you quoted

Now do I agree gravity doesn't exist? Not necessarily......but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Where did I say he said Gravity doesn't exist?

but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Read stuff 2 or 3 times if you can't comprehend it the first time

 

[jono]

I don't think you understand science. The very nature of science is the antithesis of this concept.

Also that guy didn't say gravity doesn't exist. He wants to look at better explaining what it is, which is the very nature of scientific research.

I understand, premature assumptions with no evidence.

In my post you quoted

Now do I agree gravity doesn't exist? Not necessarily......but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Where did I say he said Gravity doesn't exist?

but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Read stuff 2 or 3 times if you can't comprehend it the first time

I also did not say you did. The title of the interview is misleading and I made it accurate for anyone reading.

Also "premature assumptions with no evidence" is not science. Science assumes evidence that can be found by anyone willing to do the work and follow the same scientific method as the previous scientist.

 

[Ajackson17]

I don't think you understand science. The very nature of science is the antithesis of this concept.

Also that guy didn't say gravity doesn't exist. He wants to look at better explaining what it is, which is the very nature of scientific research.

I understand, premature assumptions with no evidence.

In my post you quoted

Now do I agree gravity doesn't exist? Not necessarily......but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Where did I say he said Gravity doesn't exist?

but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Read stuff 2 or 3 times if you can't comprehend it the first time

I also did not say you did. The title of the interview is misleading and I made it accurate for anyone reading.

Also "premature assumptions with no evidence" is not science. Science assumes evidence that can be found by anyone willing to do the work and follow the same scientific method as the previous scientist.

Right, that's the whole point of being objective, what he is talking about is subjectivity. The ego lives in the subjective, they see guys like Richard Dawkins, he is very educated but he is a personality. Most scientists are not loud and egotistical.

 

[xxCivicxx]

Who wants me to explain why @not_osirus_jenkins is wrong?????

Who really has an open mind????

Please do. If God knew all this was going to happen and he did it anyway the fault falls on the creator, not the created.

Nope that's a copout, and more satanist talk

You have the power to do good or do evil, every choice you make moves you further down a set path, of which there could be infinite or finite possiblities

It's not a fucking cop out. God gave the ability to either do good or evil. Yes or no? And answer the question with a yes or no. It's really simple. If he didnt create evil then nobody could commit evil acts correct? So if God didn't create evil and all things are of god who did it?

The Creator created EQUILIBRIUM smh

Without the concept of "evil", "good" is undefinable

And vice versa

Again smh

So yes? I need you to type yes or no.

So god was worried about duality, so he created evil as well.

And without the concept of evil, good is the norm because evil doesn't exist. Kind of stupid to create evil don't you think? But god right lmao.

Who the fuck creates something with the ability do things that the creator doesn't like or want? That shit is crazy!!

Again, arrogant smart-dumb nigga, "good" does not exist without evil. Meaning you would not know what "good" is AS A CONCEPT, without evil

You can't even comprehend this simple fucking statement smh, but you think you figured it all out

So god and semantics right? Lmao

Bad is the opposite of good not evil fucking idiot. So good can exist without evil. Proof

Genesis 1 verse 9

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Where was the duality in this? Where was the bad?

It's righteous and evil that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. But you didn't know that.

Smh so now you're arguing semantics

Yeah this convo is over. You got it

 

[xxCivicxx]

I don't think you understand science. The very nature of science is the antithesis of this concept.

Also that guy didn't say gravity doesn't exist. He wants to look at better explaining what it is, which is the very nature of scientific research.

I understand, premature assumptions with no evidence.

In my post you quoted

Now do I agree gravity doesn't exist? Not necessarily......but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Where did I say he said Gravity doesn't exist?

but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Read stuff 2 or 3 times if you can't comprehend it the first time

I also did not say you did. The title of the interview is misleading and I made it accurate for anyone reading.

Also "premature assumptions with no evidence" is not science. Science assumes evidence that can be found by anyone willing to do the work and follow the same scientific method as the previous scientist.

Incorrect

Science actually does make a lot of assumptions

Like I said before, science can't even explain what is holding the universe together

According to scientists, most celestial bodies are moving too fast to be in some kind of balanced system

 

[xxCivicxx]

Not only that, according to the big bang theory, the expansion of the universe should be slowing down the further away in time you move away from the initial moment

Yet apparently universal expansion is accelerating

 

[Ajackson17]

I don't think you understand science. The very nature of science is the antithesis of this concept.

Also that guy didn't say gravity doesn't exist. He wants to look at better explaining what it is, which is the very nature of scientific research.

I understand, premature assumptions with no evidence.

In my post you quoted

Now do I agree gravity doesn't exist? Not necessarily......but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Where did I say he said Gravity doesn't exist?

but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Read stuff 2 or 3 times if you can't comprehend it the first time

I also did not say you did. The title of the interview is misleading and I made it accurate for anyone reading.

Also "premature assumptions with no evidence" is not science. Science assumes evidence that can be found by anyone willing to do the work and follow the same scientific method as the previous scientist.

Incorrect

Science actually does make a lot of assumptions

Like I said before, science can't even explain what is holding the universe together

According to scientists, most celestial bodies are moving too fast to be in some kind of balanced system

Scientists doesn't make the accusation, they know everything. Just the opposite, it's this ever growing body of understanding and research that makes them "giddy" because they can continue learning and understanding. The fascination of knowing more and plus a huge percentage are theists of some sort of belief system anyway. Then a good portion are agnostics and very few are gnostic atheists.

 

[xxCivicxx]

I don't think you understand science. The very nature of science is the antithesis of this concept.

Also that guy didn't say gravity doesn't exist. He wants to look at better explaining what it is, which is the very nature of scientific research.

I understand, premature assumptions with no evidence.

In my post you quoted

Now do I agree gravity doesn't exist? Not necessarily......but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Where did I say he said Gravity doesn't exist?

but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Read stuff 2 or 3 times if you can't comprehend it the first time

I also did not say you did. The title of the interview is misleading and I made it accurate for anyone reading.

Also "premature assumptions with no evidence" is not science. Science assumes evidence that can be found by anyone willing to do the work and follow the same scientific method as the previous scientist.

Incorrect

Science actually does make a lot of assumptions

Like I said before, science can't even explain what is holding the universe together

According to scientists, most celestial bodies are moving too fast to be in some kind of balanced system

Scientists doesn't make the accusation, they know everything. Just the opposite, it's this ever growing body of understanding and research that makes them "giddy" because they can continue learning and understanding. The fascination of knowing more and plus a huge percentage are theists of some sort of belief system anyway. Then a good portion are agnostics and very few are gnostic atheists.

The more phenomena that science "discovers" the more phenomena that science admits it can't explain

We have MORE questions since Einstein, not less

 

[jono]

I don't think you understand science. The very nature of science is the antithesis of this concept.

Also that guy didn't say gravity doesn't exist. He wants to look at better explaining what it is, which is the very nature of scientific research.

I understand, premature assumptions with no evidence.

In my post you quoted

Now do I agree gravity doesn't exist? Not necessarily......but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Where did I say he said Gravity doesn't exist?

but I appreciate the different viewpoint and perception and it helps me open the theory up with new questions

Read stuff 2 or 3 times if you can't comprehend it the first time

I also did not say you did. The title of the interview is misleading and I made it accurate for anyone reading.

Also "premature assumptions with no evidence" is not science. Science assumes evidence that can be found by anyone willing to do the work and follow the same scientific method as the previous scientist.

Right, that's the whole point of being objective, what he is talking about is subjectivity. The ego lives in the subjective, they see guys like Richard Dawkins, he is very educated but he is a personality. Most scientists are not loud and egotistical.

Dawkins wastes his time arguing with creationists. He's not even a loud scientist, he tries to help these people understand science but they hate him for it.

 

[xxCivicxx]

More questions than answers

 

[zzombie]

The problem is both creationist and atheist or secularist misuse and abused science because they are using science for what it wasn't intended to be used for.

 

[xxCivicxx]

More questions than answers
=WL&t=2s&index=71

 

[nex gin]

So scientists had a meeting saying they're wrong about shit....sounds cool to me. Why havent religious leaders ever done this?

That has happened several times already.

so did Jonah really sleep in the belly of a whale??

Word. And I need to know how Noah fit 2 of every animal on that damn ark and why didn't the alpha predators kill & eat everything breathing on that bish....lol.

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

Ajackson lacks abstract thinking. Lots of circular reasoning

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

Dawkins is not that smart IMO. People hear a British accent and a couple big words and they think that person is intellectual. You can add Hitchens, Bill Nye on that list to. What have these idiots discovered or created? Its sad some of these people were/are considered "great thinkers" Dawkins has been called out several times by his own peers

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

Who's knows what the Universe is, we could manifested thoughts inside a persons brain.

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

 

[not_osirus_jenkins]

Who wants me to explain why @not_osirus_jenkins is wrong?????

Who really has an open mind????

Please do. If God knew all this was going to happen and he did it anyway the fault falls on the creator, not the created.

Nope that's a copout, and more satanist talk

You have the power to do good or do evil, every choice you make moves you further down a set path, of which there could be infinite or finite possiblities

It's not a fucking cop out. God gave the ability to either do good or evil. Yes or no? And answer the question with a yes or no. It's really simple. If he didnt create evil then nobody could commit evil acts correct? So if God didn't create evil and all things are of god who did it?

The Creator created EQUILIBRIUM smh

Without the concept of "evil", "good" is undefinable

And vice versa

Again smh

So yes? I need you to type yes or no.

So god was worried about duality, so he created evil as well.

And without the concept of evil, good is the norm because evil doesn't exist. Kind of stupid to create evil don't you think? But god right lmao.

Who the fuck creates something with the ability do things that the creator doesn't like or want? That shit is crazy!!

Again, arrogant smart-dumb nigga, "good" does not exist without evil. Meaning you would not know what "good" is AS A CONCEPT, without evil

You can't even comprehend this simple fucking statement smh, but you think you figured it all out

So god and semantics right? Lmao

Bad is the opposite of good not evil fucking idiot. So good can exist without evil. Proof

Genesis 1 verse 9

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Where was the duality in this? Where was the bad?

It's righteous and evil that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. But you didn't know that.

Smh so now you're arguing semantics

Yeah this convo is over. You got it

I know I do. That's why you didn't answer my question. Show me the duality in the passage I posted. I'll wait.

 

[chgarcia345]

So scientists had a meeting saying they're wrong about shit....sounds cool to me. Why havent religious leaders ever done this?

That has happened several times already.

so did Jonah really sleep in the belly of a whale??

Word. And I need to know how Noah fit 2 of every animal on that damn ark and why didn't the alpha predators kill & eat everything breathing on that bish....lol.

Lol baby animals bro...