Відео

mee hoitoon

🎉???? Jeesus on Ilmestyksen Jumala. Rakastan Jeesusta koko sydämestäni. Hän antoi minun silmääni näön. Raili

Vakavasti otettava tiede ei anna tukeaan evoluutioteorialle. Kreationistit eivät ole tiedevastaisia vaan ehdottoman tiedemyönteisiä.

Tiedeskeptisyys? Höpöhöpö. Evoluutiotarujen kertominen ei ole tiedettä vaan filosofiaa. Tiede on kokeellisesti havainnollistettavissa. Sellaisia ei evoluutio eivätkä muutkaan naturalistisen tarutrilogian serkut ole.

Rohkaisun ja lohdutuksen sanoja kärsiville uskovaisille ua-cam.com/video/WPJJUDE0IZM/v-deo.html

On väärin puhua tiedeskeptisyydestä. Kreationismille löytyy pilvin pimein TIETEELLISIÄ todisteita joita evoluutioteoriaan uskomiseen jämähtänyt enemmistö ei kykene ottamaan vastaan vaan pyrkii löytämään aina jonkun selityksen, joka tyypillisimmillään on : " No nyt emme vielä osaa tyhjentävästi vastata tähän epäilyyn, mutta " TIEDE" tulee kyllä tämänkin ristiriidan selvittämään " . Yrittäkää nyt ymmärtää että Evoluutioteoria on vähintäänkin yhtä uskonvarainen maailmankatsomus kuin kreationoismikin. Siksi on EPÄREILUA Varastaa " TIEDE " käsitteeksi yksinomaan evoluutioteorian kannattajille.

Evoluutioon voi uskoa vain jos ei ole perehtynyt tosiasioihin. Darvinin aikana ei juuri ollut mitään tietoa edes dna-sta puhumattakaan esim epigenetiikasta tai histoneista ym mekanismeista. Luennon asiaongelma oli valitettavasti se että luennoitsija ei ollut perehtynyt evoluutiokritiikin varsinaisiin ydinkohtiin. Tämän seurauksena päätelmät olivat vain osittain kohdallaan. Kiitosta ansaitsee kuitenkin se että hän yritti olla tasapuolinen ja asiallinen. Totta on myös se että kaikki kreationistit eivät suinkaan ole aina perehtyneet evokritiikkiin mutta uskovat suunnitteluun/luomiseen.

Tieto on upea sana, kun siinä alussa on käsite ”tie”. Tieto on siis luonteeltaan ymmärtämistä, joka ikäänkuin johtaa jonnekin, mutta ei pääty, niinkuin niin sanottu ”totuus”. Totuudessa on käsitteenä vakuuttelun sävy. Uskonto on kollektiivista uskomista, jonka alku liittyy ihmiskunnan kommunikaatiokykyjen syntyyn ja valtarakenteiden kehittymiseen sen kautta.

These scientists are just trying to suppress the truth of flying spaghetti monster!

Hienoa!

1:20 ”jos jumala olisikin olemassa” on paras (rationaalisin) peruste kuvitteellinen ”taivaspaikka”

Evoluutio on suosinut lajeja, joilla on kyky tarkistaa aistihavaintojaan lajitovereilta. Ihmisellä kuitenkin on taipumus olla suorastaan riippuvainen palautteen luonteesta. Tämä kärjistää havainnoista tehtyjä johtopäätöksiä.

Tieteellä ja uskonnolla on yhteinen ongelma: kummallakin on houkutus polarisoida havaintoja, kärjistää, popularisoida. Tieteen teko antaa tutkijalle ja myös hänen elämälleen suuren merkityksen ja edellyttää intohimoa ottaa asiasta selvää. Hänellä on kyky löytää uusia kysymyksiä. Uskonto on huomattavasti lähempänä ”viihdettä” kuin tiede. Tieteen edistymisen merkitys katoaa lähes saman tien, etenkin lääketieteen alalla.

It is really the people without faith, all who live in a sodomite life. It is the perverts hate Christ. They are the body of the Anti Christ. The BEAST is just a tool for falsehood. Christians don’t hate anyone if they are true CHRISTIANS. But, actually Atheist Ideologies made Sodomites main stream. Godless people screw up the world, but they are 2/3s of humankind. 1/3 use the unrepentant sinners as fuel to JERUSALEM 🔥🕊🙉🙈🙊☘️🦁🐂🦅🌝💔❤️‍🩹❤️🙏🏻💤🔥

Kohdassa 11:27 hauskasti tulee ”älykkään suunnittelun” subjektiivisuus esille. Kristitytkään eivät puhu ”viisaasta suunnittelusta”, (joka olisi loogisempaa liittyen utopiaan Jumalan ”kaikkihyvyydestä”.)

Toteamus:”pitää totena” kuulostaa lähes samalta kuin ”uskoa”. Tieto sammuttaa uskon. Silloin emme pidä asiaa enää totena, vaan asia on tosi (subjektiivisesti). Uskonto edellyttää kollektiivista sopimista siitä, mitä pitää ”pitää totena” eli uskoa. Uskonnon voima piilee sen autoritaarisuudessa, joukkovoimassa. Tieteen voima piilee sen kyvyssä löytää totuuksia. Pyrkimys on vastakkainen joukkovoimille ja -uskomuksille.

Usko on olettamista. Se ”täyttää” sitä, mitä emme tiedä. Uskonto on järjestäytynyttä uskoa, joka edellyttää autoritaarisuutta, josta taas tiede pyrkii pääsemään eroon.

Romans is not referring to Eunuchs where one partner is transgender. 🏳️‍🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. It's even in the Bible. Yes, the bible was written by bigoted men and is way outdated and was changed and should be thrown out. But even Jesus spoke about transgender people. Eunuchs made that way by others were abused (it doesn't happen to everyone that is abused). Those that choose to live like Eunuchs FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex characteristics but opposite in regards to gender. Notice, God PREFERS for people to be in LGBT relationships. Eunuchs are same sex couples. One partner is transgender. Transgender is when someone is born with a gender opposite the sex characteristics normally associated with that gender. God made us male or female, determined by gender, locaed in the brain. Your gender is located in your brain and determined at birth. I have an identical twin sister that is female in gender. I am male in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 and that means any discrepancies in the bible are ultimately decided by me. Plus, it states in Deuteronomy that nobody was castrated back then. And that doesn't make sense anyhow. No one is born castrated and no one is born making the decision to be celibate. But, that is what God wanted the lying preachers to think so they wouldn't take it out of the bible. Intersex people still have one gender or another because gender is located in your brain. And Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people. So anyone that says different than this won't be here much longer. It's everyone's choice. .. Anyone teaching the LIE of monetary tithing or getting paid in any way to minister will also die with the wicked. Peter 2:9 says we are ALL ministers.

A legenda di Pamelarioss.Uno snowquen hè u mo idolu. Hè a persona chì aspiru à essew, hè a mo luce di ghjornu

Brooke is great at his field

She's brilliant and I believe that her theories are medicine for the youth today who are hoping to find reasons for progress and consensus other than those based on Utopia.

Olen myös puhuva käärme -denialisti. "Oikeat asiantuntijat" ovat varmasti yhtä mieltä siitä, että puhuva käärme on historiallinen henkilö.

Tyhjän haudan luonnollisin selitys on se, että tajuttomaksi mennyt Jeesus hoidettiin haudassa jaloilleen, Mirha ja aloe olivat esim. haavalääkkeitä.

The best way to understand an ideology is to understand its history: ua-cam.com/video/XFVARio4pAk/v-deo.html

There is an agenda behind these authors of so called "popularization of Science", of scientism. David Berlinski has written a great book about the limits of this vision: ua-cam.com/video/tvnTnC9ldZs/v-deo.html

Vedic theistic science of free will agrees that most people never escape from bondage of sense gratification. 18:00

Sometimes it is motivated by religion. Sorry, but that's what you are doing right there, coming from a religious perspective. 😐

Criticism of Scientism is often motivated by an intention to protect true science from Dogmatism.

scientism does not exist. It is made up by fools who do not understand science

Great topic. De Ridder´s analysis is of the utmost importance in an important area of scholarly dialogue. It is also one in which the New Atheist ideologues have been raging and swinging wildly, confusing many matters and feeding their followers´ own ideological, unscholarly, and often belligerent and presumptuous behavior. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould had raised an important and related issue when he talked about "Non-overlapping Magisteria" in his day. Even then, Gould used a term taken from a papal document, with an apparent ontological take, and no term drawing on the Philosophy of Epistemology. Fritjof Capra´s work in General Systems Theory seems another important work in this area, in which the philosophical nature of Science is not being made explicit, and the legitimacy of non-Science knowledge domains needs to be established based on the structure of the objective world and the ongoing historical and psychosocial development of Philosophy into different forms of human knowledge.

Ompa hölmö selitys. Uskonnollinen kokemus on aivopieru jota hän ei muuten ymmärrä kuin jumalalla...sehän nyt tunnetusti on tietämättömyyden argumentti.

Siis kaikkea hyvän puolella kaikkia paljoa vastaan, se on kommunismi eikä liittyy millä lailla Kantin oppiin. Esitys on emotionaalinen ja tolkutonta.

Okay, a couple of points. Firstly, rational deliberation strikes me as plausibly deterministic. Secondly, and most importantly, he doesn't define science very well. He is correct that there are different ways of finding truth. However, which of these is and isn't called "science" is up for debate. If god exists, you could call discovering him science, and then god would be a scientific fact. However, the blurry border between science and non science is being exploited. He sounds like someone accusing others of being "ceramicist" in their refusal to accept his personal, more chocolatey teapot designs.

Huippua!

Loistavaa! Lisää tällaisia tekstitettyjä, lyhyitä ja kiinnostavia videoita!

I may agree on morality part but not forming belief because neuroscience explains it

Your argument is specious and utterly not compelling. Scientific naturalism and supernaturalism are completely at odds and impossible to reconcile, for the following reasons: 1) Scientific naturalism relies upon unfettered inquiry, whereas supernaturalism relies upon authority; 2) Scientific naturalism relies upon empiricism and skepticism, whereas supernaturalism relies upon unsupported, evidence-free faith; 3) Scientific naturalism possesses a universal, global standard for determining whether an assertion is plausible or possibly "true," whereas supernaturalism possess untold tens of thousands of DIFFERENT standards, each at odds with one another, and none based upon verifiable evidence; 4) Scientific naturalism provides powerful, robust, broad, coherent, falsifiable, and predictive explanations, whereas supernaturalism has not provided a single explanation about anything. Now, try as you might to justify your superstition, scientific naturalism and supernaturalism are mutually exclusive, incompatible, and irreconcilable.

I am just curious if anybody can name who some prominent scientismists are? I must say that I disagree with the philosophy of scientism as presented here, but I can't think of any mainstream media personality that endorses or promotes that position, at least none that are taken seriously. Also, Dawkins book the god delusion does not claim science has proven there is no God, he even created a scale of belief 1-7, 1 being I know there is, and 7 being I know there is not a god. Dawkins described himself as a 6, very strongly believes there isn't. He is an agnostic atheist, not an anti theist

I think scientism is a myth made up by people who want to push religion. How many serious scientists have ever said "there is no way that there will ever be any way to determine what is and isn't true other than the scientific method!" Seriously, who is saying that? I think that's a dishonest characterization of the debate. No one is saying that there could never be another way other than the scientific method. The issue is that some people want to put forward faith or religion as a valid way of determining what is and isn't true. I reject that idea because faith and religion have yet to show in any demonstrable terms that their method is self correcting or that it can give us an accurate understanding of reality. It has yet to show us any understanding of the universe that we didn't already have that you don't have to just assume is correct. That is to say that the claims that religion/faith make that one might claim are a deeper understanding are only backed up by that religion/faith claims that it's true. Obviously, we get into a circular argument like that. My claim isn't that there is no way other than science to find out what is and isn't true. Nor do I claim that every conclusion one reaches using the scientific method will be correct. No one is making either of those two claims. What I am saying is that religion/faith has made no contributions to our understanding of the universe that can be backed up with objective evidence. Saying that religion/faith doesn't give us a deeper understanding of the universe is not equivalent to saying that ONLY science can give us a deeper understanding of the universe.

27:00 www.newscientist.com/article/2063204-mystery-bright-spots-could-be-first-glimpse-of-another-universe/ they have tackled the problem already (nothing concrete yet)

21:30 I am amazed how many economists think of themselves as hard scientists BTW

41:30

35:40

24-28:30

Why you turn OFF your cell phone when you speak. ;)

Tästä aihepiiristä pitäisi tehdä kirja, "two views ...".