Shakyamunison-
With all due respect, the hyperlink (that you posted)--the amateur video--had nothing to do with the video presentation that I presented.
Bear with me, please.
My post--this thread--deals with the development of human beings, starting from a "single cell." All the video provided, despite the negative attitude, was "confirmed" scientific knowledge (on the development of human beings)--nothing more than "observational data" witnessed in the laboratory, and the female womb. On what basis do you dent that?
Moving on.
The hyperlink, to the video presentation, is--if I may say so--flawed for two reasons: (1) the video begins with "pre-existing" material and/or DNA information. The video doesn't attempt to explain its origin. (It's a free lunch, and everyone goes home!), and (2) the video presents an argument without "real life" examples, in nature. If such were true--more strongly, "scientific"--why resort to examples/images of South Park characters and C. G. images of green and brown beetles? The entire presentation was "hypothetical." Period, and yet, it is portrayed as scientific fact.
Excuse me, if I am not convinced. I am merely being critical. Perhaps we should agree to disagree, or not?
What do you all think?
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-With all due respect, the hyperlink (that you posted)--the amateur video--had nothing to do with the video presentation that I presented.
Bear with me, please.
My post--this thread--deals with the development of human beings, starting from a "single cell." All the video provided, despite the negative attitude, was "confirmed" scientific knowledge (on the development of human beings)--nothing more than "observational data" witnessed in the laboratory, and the female womb. On what basis do you dent that?
Moving on.
The hyperlink, to the video presentation, is--if I may say so--flawed for two reasons: (1) the video begins with "pre-existing" material and/or DNA information. The video doesn't attempt to explain its origin. (It's a free lunch, and everyone goes home!), and (2) the video presents an argument without "real life" examples, in nature. If such were true--more strongly, "scientific"--why resort to examples/images of South Park characters and C. G. images of green and brown beetles? The entire presentation was "hypothetical." Period, and yet, it is portrayed as scientific fact.
Excuse me, if I am not convinced. I am merely being critical. Perhaps we should agree to disagree, or not?
What do you all think?
I didn't watch the video. I didn't even read the links. I just got on line and found some links and video. I was trying to make a point to you. That point is that links and videos alone are not a debate. You should give your points first and then add links and videos as support. Instead you just place the video with nothing else. That would be fine if you created an information thread like when I made one to explain my type of Buddhism, but that is not what you are doing. You want to have the benefit of starting a debate with a video. That is unfair. I can't debate with a video, and you have not said a word. All I end up doing is what you did about. I have to pick at the video, and that just makes me look stupid, just like you look stupid above.