Angry at Free Energy YouTubers...

[AlfBaz]

Geese are we still disusing this.

I've never seen so many experts be wrong before, of course there's free energy

[pickle9000]

Geese are we still disusing this.

I've never seen so many experts be wrong before, of course there's free energy

My sisters home was purchased from a court sale and had that exact wiring. Good news for her bad news for the person that bypassed the meter.

[SeanB]

My sisters home was purchased from a court sale and had that exact wiring. Good news for her bad news for the person that bypassed the meter.

This is how you do it......

http://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/116854-this-is-how-people-steal-electricity-in-south-africa.html

[smjcuk]

Haha I know a guy who was a power engineer in south Africa. Stuff like that turned up all the time. They just left it there so they didn't get shot or stabbed. If they wanted to sort it, they'd just remove the associated step down transformer from the pole on the local circuit in the middle of the night.

[Mechanical Menace]

yes thats right! you are a monkey,

Only in the same sense we're still animals, chordates, mammals etc. And arguable depending on your interpretation of cladistics. It all depends on if you'd count the most recent common ancestor of monkeys and apes as a monkey or not. I know people on both sides of the argument and TBH it's very academic and pretty irrelevant to what the evidence has to say about the processes involved.

Feeling insulted by the idea that all life on the planet is related isn't an argument against the evidence

by evolusionist definition take it with grain and salt..

It's funny how the only people who use the word "evolutionist" don't actually understand what evolution is, as your rant clearly demonstrated.

"Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." That one observable fact (and it is a fact) is all that it is.

Natural selection is just an explanation of the mechanisms that select one trait over another. It's the only successful model though many (such as the Nazis and Soviet Union) pushed others due to their beliefs. The Nazis were just wrong on that matter, but the USSR's "religious" enforcement of Lamarkism killed millions.

Genetics is (mainly) what explains where those traits come from.

[timb]

Exactly. The fact is, our DNA is 99% the same as an oak tree. Does that mean we're trees? I'll leaf that for you to decide.


Sent from my Tablet

[rolycat]

The fact is, our DNA is 99% the same as an oak tree.

We don't even share 99% with chimpanzees - it's more like 96%.

(Calculated in this paper, published after the chimp genome was completely sequenced in 2005.)

Humans and trees are unlikely to have more than about 25% of their DNA in common.

[zapta]

Bible is quite consistent, and explains itself quite well. I just don't know how god created human, while leaving pathetic lower level primates there.

So, you do believe that an omni potent god exists but you are surprised that you, a lowly mortal, don't understand how he operates?  That's very presumptuous on your part.  ;-)

[zapta]

So, you do believe that an omni potent god exists but you are surprised that you, a lowly mortal, don't understand how he operates?  That's very presumptuous on your part.  ;-)

So I think we need a bio PhD to join our church, and see how he will explain all of this.
[/quote]

Why? He he will be just another lowly mortal.  Our current understanding of reality is infinitesimally small.

[nuno]

I just can not believe the evolution theory is not true. I mean, I am a true believer to god, and the only thing that I am confused in the holy Bible is the place where god created human.

When I was a kid mom made me go to "church school" (that thing 1h every week, I don't know the name in English). At a certain point I learned about evolution, then one day I put the question to my "church school master": well, the bible says God created man but we know now that man came from apes through evolution; what now? And he replied that the bible just says God created man, it doesn't say exactly how he did it. Ok, fair enough I thought. (I don't believe in God)

[nuno]

For me was easy, just been rational, so no struggle here.

[Lightages]

Well, that theory doesn't stand. Genesis said "Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'"

This is the place confuses me the most, and I am struggling finding an answer.

A book written by men, and men telling you that a god made them write it, thousands of years ago, and you believe it is the word of that god and it confuses you because it doesn't work logically, doesn't match what you know to be real or possible,  or even make sense to you? You believe this? Really? If you believe that god wrote it and it is all true and to be followed, then stop questioning and start killing people for wearing cotton and other fabrics together, or stone your children to death if they question you. If you are questioning this, why aren't your parents stoning you to death? Oh maybe you don't need to worry today because it is Sunday and that "all powerful" god is too tired to do things on Sunday.

If you question or don't like even one part of a holy book that you follow, how can any of it be trusted? Would you jump into a swimming pool even if there was only one shit turd floating in it?

[bills]

I have plans to build a free energy radio, and it works great.

[ivaylo]

When did God create the oscilloscope anyways? And jeesh..., what does all this crap have to do with the OP's original subject?

[mtdoc]

Would you jump into a swimming pool even if there was only one shit turd floating in it?

On that note, I think this thread needs some comic relief.

 

[nuno]

When did God create the oscilloscope anyways? And jeesh..., what does all this crap have to do with the OP's original subject?

Religious beliefs.

[GK]

Same with evolution.  There is no half man-half monkey.  There is no animal whose parents were monkeys but it is a man.  It is a gradual progression only visible when you see the gradual changed that have taken place over a long period of time.  Saying "evolution is just guesses because there is no man+monkey" is equally ignorant of the theory as saying "current doesn't follow the path of least resistance because I had 2 wires... and both of them shocked me... when only one of them should have shocked me - the one with lower resistance".  It just shows the speaker doesn't understand resistance, not that resistance theory is wrong.

You really aren't in any position to berate anyone for their scientific illiteracy with regards to the theory of evolution after posting that bullshit. There aren't even examples of "gradual progressions" between man and monkey because homo-sapiens didn't descend from monkeys in the first place.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm

[Mechanical Menace]

You really aren't in any position to berate anyone for their scientific illiteracy with regards to the theory of evolution after posting that bullshit. There aren't even examples of "gradual progressions" between man and monkey because homo-sapiens didn't descend from monkeys in the first place.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm

In a strict phylogenetic sense apes, and by extension humans, are monkeys though...



In the same way we're still life, eukaryotes, animals, chordates, mammals, primates, haplorhini, anthropoids, apes, hominids, humans, and specifically homo sapiens sapiens we're still mokeys. When a new branch is made everything on it is still one of what it branched off from, but it is also the new thing on top of that.

[xrunner]

But what started it all?

[SeanB]

But what started it all?

Sunlight hitting clay in a shallow warm ocean, and this was able to catalyse reactions between simple carbon compounds to form more complex ones. Eventually some were developed by this and were capable of growing on the substrate, and became free floating and able to enclose other molecules in a lipid envelope. Later on these developed into units capable of duplicating themselves by growing and dividing. Then one engulfed another and did not destroy it immediately, but used the fact that the engulfed organelle was capable of converting simple sugars to an activated phosphate byproduct which the outer unit could use for energy. This then was the origin of all life here, it was able to outcompete all others.

[GK]

You really aren't in any position to berate anyone for their scientific illiteracy with regards to the theory of evolution after posting that bullshit. There aren't even examples of "gradual progressions" between man and monkey because homo-sapiens didn't descend from monkeys in the first place.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm

In a strict phylogenetic sense apes, and by extension humans, are monkeys though...snip

I half figured before posting that this was going to be a waste of time. We can extend your argument all the way back to call humans some kind of pond slime. That may be a fitting description for some specific examples, but is entirely besides the point anyway. There isn't a direct line of descent between humans and monkeys. Those taking it upon themselves to defend science shouldn't perpetuate the exact same myths and over simplifications that those on the other side of the fence use to attack it.
 

[bills]

Was watching a program " how the Universe was made" A Vatican priest astronomer Said the view of the Vatican now  is
the bible is not a scientific book, as scientific books are updated every few years.( A pragmatic view in my opinion.)
and they do not dismiss evolution.

Let the flames begin
regards
bill

[smjcuk]

Yeah they're quite progressive in the Vatican state. Still, they've got a male virgin in a white dress giving out sexual advice, so I'm not sure they're quite there yet. Actually I feel sorry for their science advisor; that'd be hard work! Even North Korea has more sense to it.

More seriously, I've had many thirty minute long debates on my doorstep with a particularly persistent JW couple over the last year. I suspect they want out as they turn up for the discussion, not to try and convert me. There are so many gaps in their basic science education that its unreal which I've been filling them in with if they like it or not. Bear in mind this is the UK which has a relatively strong science education but their parents both (independently) home-schooled them and appear to have entirely skipped that bit.

I reckon that this is pretty much how this utter nonsense persists. Poor education, indoctrination and isolation to 'protect people from bad ideas'.

It's 2015.

[Mechanical Menace]

snip...

You're not at all up to date. In the same way Pluto is no longer a planet (but for better reason) apes are now monkeys. Might be because the most recent common ancestor between apes and monkeys was a monkey...

[GK]

snip...

You're not at all up to date. In the same way Pluto is no longer a planet (but for better reason) apes are now monkeys. Might be because the most recent common ancestor between apes and monkeys was a monkey...

had you actually read the article I linked to in my first post you'd see that it discusses relatively recent branches of the evolutionary tree; namely the contentious ancestor common to both humans (hominids) and the species of "great apes" colloquially and commonly called monkeys.

http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/Is-This-the-Common-Ancestor-of-Humans-Chimps-Gorillas-70715.shtml

I think that it is pretty damn obvious that when the typical anti-evolutionist attempts to discredit the theory of evolution by insisting that it is claimed that humans evolved from "monkeys" that they have these well known species of "great ape" in mind rather than freaking Nakalipithecus nakayamai. The theory of evolution most certainly does not state that my great great great (blah blah blah) grandparents were a pair of chimpanzees or gorillas.