Hey Genji ... hope you're well. Have a very Happy Birthday
HAPPY BIRTHDAY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ...AND MANY MORE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ENJOY ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!
Difficult to keep track of all the different standards and just who they are applied to.
THREE WORDS nuclear FUCKING WEAPONS.
You have been temp-banned for two weeks for an ad hominem attack against @UsesProzac in Sift Lounge. Specifically: "you'd think only fat ugly girls like @UsesProzac would sit inside trolling video sites all day" As you've been warned (and possibly temp-banned?) for the same offense previously (by @dag: http://videosift.com/member/GenjiKilpatrick?loadcomm=1#comment-1319402), you may be on the verge of a permanent ban.
We should all be on guard at all times. In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick: So you're including yourself in that group, yes? Or are you too hipster for that? "I was counter-culture before counter-culture was a culture." >> ^gorillaman: I hope we all understand that you can nod your head along to the sentiments in this video and still be a part of the problem.
You've been awarded 1 Power Point for your awesome tongue avatar. Rock on like Donkey Kong.
>> ^siftbot: Congratulations! Your socialization with the community in Sift Lounge has earned you your "Lounge Lizard" Level 3 Badge! congrats meatbag!
Congratulations! Your socialization with the community in Sift Lounge has earned you your "Lounge Lizard" Level 3 Badge!
Yeah, but wait till it sifts. In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick: downvote to the bottoms of the interwebs
Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.
Your video, Biochemist creates CO2-eating light, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
It doesn't follow, though. The evidence that proves micro-evolution does not prove universal common descent. The evidence for micro-evolution would be evidence for macro-evolution if it could also prove UCD. It is one thing to say species change, or even that they can change into other species. It is quite a different thing to say that all species evolved from a common ancestor. That goes far beyond what you can prove scientifically. This also is not about drawing an imaginary line about how much change can occur; it has to do with the amount of information in the genome. For bacteria to man evolution, a significant amount of information has to be added to the genome. The information in the bacteria genome, no matter how you shuffle it around, will never produce anything more significantly complex than itself. So then the question is, how does this information get added to the genome? Many people at this point will say "mutations!", but the problem with that is, we have never seen a mutation give rise to an increase in functional complexity. If they do, they are so compartively rare as to completely invalidate evolution as a theory. There simply wouldn't be enough time to account for the millions of changes required. As the main mechanism for adding information into the genome, you would think that there would be clear evidence to support its actually happening..but you would be wrong: So these are a few reasons why I do not buy into the evolutionary paradigm. The way it is presented to the public is as a proven fact, but when you start analysing the data and not just listening to the conclusions, you find a giant mess with no clear answers. You also find a chorus of true believers who just know its true and interpret all of the data through the conclusion. They see everything through those glasses and thus that is the way everything looks to them. In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick: How do you reconcile accepting the science that substantiates micro-evolution.. but disregarding the SAME SCIENCE that substantiates macro-evolution. It's sorta like if I said: "I accept the evidence for the divinity of Jesus. But I refuse to accept that Yahweh exists" If it follows that: Divinty of Jesus = Divinity of Yahweh. Then it must follow that: Evidence of Micro-evolution = Evidence of Macro-evolution. How do you reconcile this without talking in circles?
Your video, Barber Shop S.W.A.T., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point. This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!
Not yet a member? No problem!Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?Recover it now.
A code has been sent to your email. Please submit it here:
Already signed up?Log in now.
Remember your password?Log in now.