Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

randyvs
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

As far as idiots go I haven't noticed any in this thread. But thanks for the tip. PHFFF !

edit on 27-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Your inability to perceive foots being inserted in mouths on every page in this thread is astounding.
I guess ignorance is bliss after all.

reply to post by flyingfish


Well I was just trying to compliment everyone who participated in this thread.
So much for that.

reply to post by randyvs


C'est La Vie .......Moan A Me...........

I think that this one was done much better. I'm not for or against any view only what makes sense to me. And I find this one the most interesting

a reply to: Corruptedstructure

I find it somewhat insane.

I find most people insane. Doesn't mean they they are all boring..

a reply to: Corruptedstructure

I find the idea of trusting youtube videos as scientific evidence (especially ones that are 3 and a half hours long) is conducive to spreading ignorance.

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
... it makes no sense to believe a lizard crawled up a tree, and over millions of years it's front leg turned into a wing so it could fly. ... I really would like to hear how it was advantageous to slowly grow a leg into a wing and then I want to see it happening.

Some lizard ribs, not " front leg " , evolved into wings ...
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11411-ancient-liza rd-extended-its-rib-bones-to-glide.html

An (unrelated) extant version ... wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_volans

I didn't say I trusted it. I said I find it interesting and put together better than the OP original videos. I also enjoyed the Omega Project Codes for example and some other concept videos not necessarily on YouTube. I find a lot of concepts interesting. It doesn't mean that I trust it..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Corruptedstructure

I find many concepts interesting too, but I'd rather go to the horses' mouth (scientific journals) and read about it rather than subject myself to someone's interpretation of it (that may be skewed by bias).

So.. you are saying that scientific journals cannot be skewed by bias?


a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Corruptedstructure

No I am not saying that at all, but I'd trust that it is less likely that a scientific journal is skewed by bias than a youtube video. Nothing is perfect, but we can get as close as possible and academic journals are where that is.

Well, some of us do not have access to a lot of the original sourced journals that can be trusted. Same as history resources. So, one tends to have to trust what makes sense to them over believing everything they are fed. I don't have any beliefs. Only what I know and don't know...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Corruptedstructure

Well there are some secondary sources that are good to look at then. Wikipedia requires its editors to source every claim they make. There are science dedicated websites that you can look that try to summarize scientific topics as objectively as possible. Some universities host science websites as well.

All of these are better sources of science and information than youtube. I would rank youtube at the bottom of the list of things I would find credible. It's just that easy to paint a false narrative and distract someone from processing it as bunk with pretty pictures and fast talking as opposed to being able to sit down and read it at your own pace.

I do the majority of my reading on this site. Doesn't mean that I trust everything on here. It is a good outlet for reading sources and videos of interest. I prefer the collaboration of thoughts on a subject than just one. I don't know why you keep bringing up youtube. I don't see it as a source. only an outlet like here. That is like saying one of your trusted scientific journals is placed on youtube is a bad source because it is on youtube. I am not defending youtube. The video did not originate on youtube for that matter. And Wiki can claim whatever they want...


a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Corruptedstructure

When people diss youtube, they do so not because it's a medium for streaming audio and visual information in realtime but because the typical woo videos that get touted as "proof" contain nothing more than unsourced, baseless claims. A youtube video in and of itself is not evidence. A youtube video presenting the findings of a scientific, peer-reviewed study is obviously a different ball game entirely.

a reply to: Corruptedstructure

I am using youtube as a blanket for any video source really. The problem with using video as a source (even videos not originating from youtube) is that you have to process the information at the speed of the video. Sure you can pause the video every time someone makes a claim and validate it, but that is tedious. It is much easier to read your information and process it slowly, not letting eye catching nonsense distract you from the message.

I guess I have never really had a problem processing fast paced videos then. Maybe growing up in the Video Game era has contributed to it. I don't know. I know that I catch things that most people miss. I use to think it was just because of the way my eyes are although, without corrective lenses I cannot see much at all. But, I have come to realize it's my ability to process extreme detail quickly. SO, I understand what your are saying now. Just like some can read a paragraph then having to reread it because their mind wonders. I have the issues sometimes. I can read a couple pages and didn't obtain any of it even if it has my interest. I have to go back and reread it. Can make a book take a lot longer than most. Sometimes, I never even end up finishing a book because of it..


a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Corruptedstructure
I guess I have never really had a problem processing fast paced videos then. Maybe growing up in the Video Game era has contributed to it. I don't know. I know that I catch things that most people miss. I use to think it was just because of the way my eyes are although, without corrective lenses I cannot see much at all. But, I have come to realize it's my ability to process extreme detail quickly. SO, I understand what your are saying now. Just like some can read a paragraph then having to reread it because their mind wonders. I have the issues sometimes. I can read a couple pages and didn't obtain any of it even if it has my interest. I have to go back and reread it. Can make a book take a lot longer than most. Sometimes, I never even end up finishing a book because of it..


a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think you are missing my point. I can watch a video and process the information it is giving, but if I want to fact check the claims in the video, I have to pause the video every time they make a claim to make sure they are on the level. With text documents (especially well sourced ones) I can just navigate over to the appropriate text and source the claim. It is hard to find a documentary that is well put together and doesn't peddle a bunch of bulls#.

Oh, I just remember the parts that I am not sure about and do searches later. A lot of the time finding good discussions about the topic I am searching for

a reply to: Krazysh0t