Journey to the origins of the Earth, exceptional full documentary

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

What are you going to give us your creationist theory?

Cretionnist.

[Janic]

Do you want a slap? Oh no, you've already had a well-placed bat !!

still violence to impose a speech

What are you going to give us your creationist theory?

When it comes to theory, all are the same!
So I repeat myself! when we talk about round earth we are not saying a theory! That the sun does not revolve around the earth, we do not say a theory, we are sure. But the theory of evolution should be treated differently or else the term theory should be deleted, but no scientist worthy of the name would do so: why?
Finally, Darwin, himself a creationist in his first editions, did not speak of evolution, but of adaptation and the words used have meaning!
Etienne Klein himself, without taking a stand, poses the question of an organized universe and why and how, or of a succession of improbable coincidences.

August 17, 2018 - For science, can the universe be the result of a will or does its organization remain the result of chance? Etienne KLEIN. - Science doesn't ...

and following

Cretionnist.

Amusing! I don't care I'm not religious and I just criticize the naivety of the pious images of believers as much as the same ones of unbelievers, everything is to be put in the same basket, good for the trash!

[ABC2019]

Let the sun not revolve around the earth,

Think again, the Sun turns well around the Earth, in the same frame of reference as the one where the Moon turns around the Earth (that is to say in the frame of reference linked to the Earth).

And in the frame of reference where it is the Earth which revolves around the Sun, well the Moon it revolves ... also around the Sun !

In short, it's just a question of reference, it's much more "relative" than the theory of evolution (afterwards if you prefer to talk about adaptation, it's just vocabulary, but what does that change?)

[Christophe]

When it comes to theory, all are the same!

diner-de-cons-1998-11-g.jpg (73.74 KiB) Viewed 1551 times

For the rest: Science-and-Technology / L-evolution-of-cash-biological-and-the-chance-t11282.html

[Janic]

ABC2019 »19/01/21, 19:22
janic wrote: Let the sun not revolve around the earth,

Think again, the Sun turns well around the Earth, in the same frame of reference as the one where the Moon turns around the Earth (that is to say in the frame of reference linked to the Earth).

Ah, well then, if you hadn't said it, no one would have suspected it

And in the frame of reference where the Earth revolves around the Sun, well the Moon revolves ... also around the Sun!

and even on itself. Better and better! Well then, science is beautiful!

after if you prefer to talk about adaptation, it's just vocabulary, but what does that change?)

JE prefer nothing over adaptation, Darwin HIM talking about adaptation, do you make the difference?
What's the difference ? Read the'origin of species to begin with, then compare his speech to that of the theory of evolution, it is not more difficult than to compare the A and the H. Ah, I forgot you refuse to do it again!

For the rest: sciences-et-technologies / the-evolution-of-biological-species-and-chance-t11282.html

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Adaptation, evolution ... You can put the words you want, the fact remains that Darwin's theory is no longer one and that yes, scientists have been able to trace and illustrate the evolution of beings for billions of years. 'years to the present day. Do not give a fuck to take one word for another to flatter his beliefs, his ego or his sensitivity.

[Janic]

GuyGadeboisLeRetour »19/01/21, 19:57
Adaptation, evolution ...

Adaptation
Synonymes
• acclimatization.
• acclimatization.
• accommodation.
• habituation.
• adequate.
• adequacy.
• adjustment.
• arrangement.
no correspondence of meaning with the very definition of evolution

You can put the words you want,

It is not I who put words with very precise meanings in place of other words, not even synonyms. This is the role of linguistics! And Darwin was no more stupid than we are today and he knew the meaning of words, which is why he uses one in the precise sense, not another.

the fact remains that Darwin's theory is no longer one and that yes, scientists have been able (...)

Scientists like those who speak 99.99% of vaccination as indisputable and yet you dispute them.

retrace and illustrate the evolution of beings for billions years to the present day.

As a theory, no indisputable and verifiable facts, and there nothing except dogmas. All this has been seen through the menu in the subject devoted and cited by Christophe, it suffices to refer to it knowing that the vast majority of quotes come from evolutionists themselves, just as references among non-vaccineists come from the literature. provaccines. Keep this similarity in mind in order to understand that whatever the subjects, the mechanisms are the same.

don't give a shit about taking one word for another to flatter his beliefs, his ego or his sensitivity.

You are right about the fact of flattering beliefs that they are pro or anti evolution, (such as pro or anti vaccines, related subject) and each belief is very dependent on successive cultures and that each perceives with his sensitivity. But sensitivity is not "scientific" and in this area alone Science can provide its elements of comparison.

For example:

Formation of the proto-eye [edit] modify the code]
The first perceptions of light probably have evolved at the beginning of the Cambrian, thanks to the formation of a proto-opsin, ancestor of all current opsins7. This molecule aurait integrated the membrane of the first photoreceptor cell, thanks to a protein domain made up of 7 transmembrane helices, which aurait been reused from the proteins involved in chemoreception, that is to say the perception of chemical molecules.

So supposition that, not sure that! When it is incontestable, one does not use a conditional, but a past tense, even an imperative. Then followed by:

This proto-opsin s'est then associated with the retinal, forming a group of photopigments (the opsins binding to the retinal, or retinal-binding opsins) present in animals as well as in Eubacteria and certain unicellular algae and which are responsible for phototaxis8.

Passage from a conditional to a past tense without transition. A linguistic heresy yet commonly used by evolutionist discourse! A way to impose a pseudo reality on inattentive minds.
And this is also valid if a non-evolutionary discourse does the same, the same rule applies to all.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_ ... 27%C5%93il

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

The use of the conditional is caution. Even if we know because today the methods of analysis make it possible to verify it. It was by analyzing the DNA of the chickens that we realized that it was the animal that comes closest to the tyrannosaurus rex ... for example. We can speak here of evolution and not of adaptation. Ditto for the different DNAs in animals of the same species which change biotope (moving from the outside to a cave), which become another distinct species ... and this is measurable in less than 40 years. In short, your inane blah only convinces you. The world has changed since you were young.

[moinsdewatt]

A very interesting documentary on the geological and biological history of planet Earth: its formation, its evolution, animal and plant evolution, mass extinctions ...

Doc which should be distributed in all the colleges of the world (in loop if necessary to show, among other things, how life is so precious)!

Journey to the origins of the Earth

Integrated on the site: https://www.econologie.com/telechargeme ... tinctions/

Thank you ! Watched straight until late.

[Samarion24]

Large format science on France 5 ... Super show with varied and very interesting subjects