Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "TED-Ed" channel.

  1. Now flip that around and imagine how important and meaningful we each are if that amazing whole universe was created just for you and me to exist.
    1
  2. So tell me how can you write a paper on eyes evolving without first looking up when all the different eye types showed up in the fossil record? Because that would have instantly contradicted the conjecture eyes evolved because virtually every eye type manifested within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. That means they never evolved.
    1
  3. +Alexander Sundukov Would be cleaner just going nuclear. Think of all the pollution and waste to make all those solar cells. Think of all the pollution they cause when done with them. Think of all the habitat it would affect even covering water would do lots of damage look it up. Think of the lifespan. Think of all the pollution made making the batteries to store the power and the pollution which is really toxic from getting rid of the batteries and having to make more since they won't last forever. Compare that to just some nuclear power plants that output a huge amount and even at today's function only have a minor amount of waste to have to securely package up and store away. But nuclear most likely in the future will become way better and less waste. There is really no contest even if solar could convert 100% of the suns energy. Wind is terrible too. The turbines create toxic fields around them which harms people and wildlife and birds die flying into them.
    1
  4. Alexander Sundukov really...? we still have lots of nukes in the world too.
    1
  5. Alexander Sundukov I thought Canada has a huge supply of it naturally...  something like 30 000 tons or kg exported each year
    1
  6. Alexander Sundukov My parrot won't tell me.
    1
  7. Alexander Sundukov We sure are slow to advance in some ways. Just look at cars too.
    1
  8. Alexander Sundukov I heard there is a type of nuclear we could do that would use all that waste as fuel.
    1
  9. Alexander Sundukov It's radioactive, clearly it's releasing energy so there is energy stored...
    1
  10. Alexander Sundukov you're so energetic we'd only need to shove some probs in you to power the world!
    1
  11. Kamizushi Akinari Yes they do. I never said it for no reason. Maybe research before replying.
    1
  12. Kamizushi Akinari Quit being a lazy fuck and look for yourself. You are the one who responded as if you knew the subject. http://www.electricalpollution.com/windturbines.html
    1
  13. Kamizushi Akinari How is that? You realize all the sources are at the bottom... Neither is the concept foreign to science. Hell we even use sound waves now to deliver drugs in the lungs.
    1
  14. Kamizushi Akinari The evidence is on the rest of the site.That was only mentioning the windmills and what they give off.
    1
  15. Alexander Sundukov Did you even look at the rest of the site? http://www.electricalpollution.com/
    1
  16. Kamizushi Akinari I'm not making any argument. I'm stating a fact. If you are too lazy to research the topic that is not my problem. Neither am I going to waste my time tutoring you. The information is there read it or don't.
    1
  17. Kamizushi Akinari I feel the same way. It is like someone who says 2+2=3 and won't look at the textbook.
    1
  18. Kamizushi Akinari Buddy you said in the chat all you looked at was the windmill page. If you aren't up to date on the concept that isn't my problem. I told you it is explained on the main page as well as other sites(this isn't an obscure thing). You replied fishing for me to spoon feed you. I'm not your mommy and already did enough for you. Normally someone would have some shame at this point and not comment what you just did. I shouldn't have to explain what that means.
    1
  19. Kamizushi Akinari yes this implied it since it was your direct response to that very point.  "What did you find convincing about it? You know you can't win an argument by saying "look it up", right. You actually have to explain what convinces you."
    1
  20. The Solar Wolf  The environmental footprint of mining the ore and storing the very limited amount of radioactive waste which most likely is either very small or used/will be used in other reactors in the future is quite insignificant compared to the sheer volume of pollution and waste with these solar cells in the various aspects mentioned and not mentioned. Just take a moment to think about it. The turbines regardless of the other issue would require much space and certian areas to be viable and are an eye sore and produce far less power and larger ecological impact unless you put them all in farmland for example. Even then they are an eyesore.
    1
  21. The Solar Wolf What in the world are you talking about? Do you realize how little space a nuclear plant takes and how insignificant the amount of waste is in comparison to the purposed solar panels? There is no contest lol. Also the waste we already have from reactors is what others can run on and for longer too. I don't think you comprehend the scope there is a huge disconnect between your idea of the footprint of these "green" options and your idea of the footprint of nuclear. Far less the other aspects involved. Nuclear is the only sound  real option we have right now for wide scale. Geothermal isn't practical for most of the world but is good. One very good option that would be green is some sort of large scale tidal generators that would be amazing. But I personally don't think we are advanced enough just yet to do such large generators effectively and without significant ecological impact. Maybe in 10-40 years. Now that could be the future tidal and nuclear easily.
    1
  22. +dutch1999 Tell that to the hundred of thousands if not millions of Christian martyrs.
    1
  23. +LAnonHubbard How is it painful for just religious people to watch? I would think any science and truth minded person would find it painful hearing someone tell you over and over chaos brings about logic, complexity and intelligence.
    1
  24. dutch1999 Apparently you don't know the definition of superstition.
    1
  25. The bible doesn't exactly support or even elude to whatsoever a 6000 year old earth far less a young earth. In fact it is the exact opposite with many different aspects in support. But whatever lol.
    1
  26. lmao dumdum the big bang is wholly a Christian concept. And evolution is pseudo science. It literally isn't even possible the logistics alone... "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
    1
  27. All it is, is kiddy shit playing around. Learn to play a damn instrument.  You know an actual skill, then you learn to compose actual real music and can then learn to write actual lyrics and put the two together and make REAL fucking music.
    1
  28.  @mahendravarmabheemaraju774  except when we look at the fossil record like the cambrian explosion and we see virtually every eye type manifest at the same time within a geological instant. That "evolution" thing sure is a miracle worker lol
    1
  29. Sorry but you are coming off as highly scientifically illiterate with your comment. God of the gaps is actually a common Atheist argument with naturalism, explaining everything away with "time" or the "multiverse." While being a functionally nonsense argument. "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
    1
  30.  @ET-xc2bn  If the universe created you, who created your creator? Remember big bang and space time theorems tell us the universe needed a full start and is not cyclical. In other words it needed a first cause.
    1
  31. No we don't know how the eye evolved, nor that it even evolved in the first place. Hello? That isn't in any scientific paper lol. In fact the fossil record shows the eye never evolved at all. Almost every eye type appeared within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion.
    1
  32. +OmnipotentO Nuclear is really the only future practical unless something else is invented.
    1
  33. Daniela Maya For the shear volume of electricity needed nuclear is the only practical method with little environmental impact and space needed. Yes it is dangerous if you don't know what you are doing. It is safe if you know what you are doing. Just like driving.
    1
  34. +David Markus Would be cleaner just going nuclear. Think of all the pollution and waste to make all those solar cells. Think of all the pollution they cause when done with them. Think of all the habitat it would affect even covering water would do lots of damage look it up. Think of the lifespan. Think of all the pollution made making the batteries to store the power and the pollution which is really toxic from getting rid of the batteries and having to make more since they won't last forever. Compare that to just some nuclear power plants that output a huge amount and even at today's function only have a minor amount of waste to have to securely package up and store away. But nuclear most likely in the future will become way better and less waste. There is really no contest even if solar could convert 100% of the suns energy. Wind is terrible too. The turbines create toxic fields around them which harms people and wildlife and birds die flying into them.
    1
  35. +Derek Rodrigues I thought all they discovered was atoms or electrons or something on a very small scale such as that can pop into existence and only for fractions of a second. So the particle can't even stay phased into existence far less a universe or something to that effect so that theory was not practical.
    1
  36. +Dan Burrell Would be cleaner just going nuclear. Think of all the pollution and waste to make all those solar cells. Think of all the pollution they cause when done with them. Think of all the habitat it would affect even covering water would do lots of damage look it up. Think of the lifespan. Think of all the pollution made making the batteries to store the power and the pollution which is really toxic from getting rid of the batteries and having to make more since they won't last forever. Compare that to just some nuclear power plants that output a huge amount and even at today's function only have a minor amount of waste to have to securely package up and store away. But nuclear most likely in the future will become way better and less waste. There is really no contest even if solar could convert 100% of the suns energy. Wind is terrible too. The turbines create toxic fields around them which harms people and wildlife and birds die flying into them.
    1
  37. +jojojorisjhjosef No one wants a 40 inch waist.
    1
  38.  @oscarpeter9317  Says the dumdum that can't even support their own assertion.
    1
  39.  @Catroll111  sad how bad the education system is that people like you think evolution is legitimate science still and been observed no less lol. Apparently you don't know what reductive evolution is, it's when there is degradation of information that gives a positive outcome like antibiotic resistance in bacteria, or partially being able to metabolize citrate in the long term ecoli experiment. evolution is nonsense it's a belief in magic that probability can manifest billions of lines of instructive code.
    1
  40.  @Catroll111  sad how bad the education system is that people like you think evolution is legitimate science still and been observed no less lol. Apparently you don't know what reductive evolution is, it's when there is degradation of information that gives a positive outcome like antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
    1
  41.  @Catroll111  Apparently you don't know what reductive evolution is, it's when there is degradation of information that gives a positive outcome like antibiotic resistance in bacteria. That is what has been observed. Mind boggling how bad the education system is.
    1
  42.  @Catroll111  evolution has not been observed, reductive evolution aka loss of genetic information like what antibiotic resistance in bacteria is has been. lol education system has failed you
    1
  43.  @Catroll111  No it hasn't, antibiotic resistance in bacteria is based on reductive evolution, a benefit derived from degradation of genetic information, same with the long term ecoli experiment. Your butterfly example is natural selection, ie zero creation of new genetic information just swapping info and turning on and off genes is not evolution for all intents and purposes for this conversation.
    1
  44.  @Catroll111  No it hasn't, antibiotic resistance in bacteria is based on reductive evolution, a benefit derived from degradation of genetic information, same with the long term ecoli experiment. Your butterfly example is natural selection, gene swapping no creation of new info.
    1
  45. Instead of detailing events he had to keep pushing chaos brings out logic, complexity and intelligence bullshit.
    1
  46. lol vertical farming? lmao what bullshit. who is making up this shit? renewable energy? the world would go nuclear power far sooner unless there is a breakthrough in renewable energy technology that makes it cheap and efficient.
    1
  47. +Luckyshot Excuse me but he did just the very same. Instead of going through what we know he kept shoving down everyone's throat chaos brought about logic, complexity, and intelligence. People want the truth, so maybe we should just stick to the science when on such subjects and leave the ID vs/or naturalism for it's own talk.
    1
  48. clickbait. this is another TED guilttrip piece on carbon and global warming
    1
  49. "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
    1
  50. It's ridiculous the writer of the video assumes none of these women were witches. It's extremely common even in this day and age, just go to any local book store and look at all the books in the occult section. Clearly people practice witchcraft thus are witches.
    1