A fantastic video on the science behind creation and well worth the time to watch.

[tcox4freedom]

 

[kwimby]

Looks like a nature video to me.

 

[tcox4freedom]

An EXCELLENT nature video.

 

[nosreme]

This is true and accurate science as long as you define science to include willful disregard of the scientific method in order to ensure that your science points unerringly to predetermined conclusions. Pathetic and comical at the same time.

 

[wallyb]

free country, so I will not even comment on the "fantastic video."

 

[BluesStringer]

This is true and accurate science as long as you define science to include willful disregard of the scientific method in order to ensure that your science points unerringly to predetermined conclusions. Pathetic and comical at the same time.

Are you talking about the video or the "scientists" at East Anglia University? I haven't had time to watch the video yet, but I'd be willing to bet that there will be no admissions such as came out of the East Anglia's email scandal like this:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.... - Phil Jones

I have never seen you mention the subject, nogods, but it would somewhat surprise me to find out that you haven't always had an inordinate amount of umm...faith in global warming orthodoxy, even in light of the completely exposed as corrupt purveyors of it. Whether or not you're an adherent of the global warming hoax, it proves that the "scientific method" ain't all it's cracked up to be. All global warmers start out in faith that they can prove a preconceived conclusion. They did as much to damage the credibility of their faith (or "science" if you prefer) by applying what you refer to as the "scientific method" as the producers of that video even have the potential to do to their message by eschewing it (if they really did - I'm only taking your word for it at this point).

Blues

 

[tcox4freedom]

This is true and accurate science as long as you define science to include willful disregard of the scientific method in order to ensure that your science points unerringly to predetermined conclusions. Pathetic and comical at the same time.

Can you please cite the examples in the video you are speaking about. Since you have made some "authoritative" claims, you are obviously putting yourself out there as an "authority" on scientific method. So, I am certain you can enlighten the rest of us by addressing what was discussed in the video.

What exactly in the video to you consider pathetic?
What exactly to you consider comical?

Please cite scientifically why you disagree with the video.

As of this date you have been unable to voice what you consider valid scientific procedure. The only thing you can do is emotionally lash out against what others post. (That is not very "reasonable" or scientific for a person who prides themselves on reason & scientific knowledge.)

What do you wish to discuss about the video?

-