It's a technique that they teach to public speakers. It's supposed to be dramatic and energetic so that they can have the audience's attention, rather than sound very mundane and put people to sleep.
+Gerard Haasnoot Eye witness testimony is the least credible type of evidence. With that being said, there is no requirement in science that any event be witnessed. If the event took place at all, there would be evidence of it. In the case of theories, the evidence for them are the verified predictions that they make. This is why we have theories.
+Gerard Haasnoot Eye witness testimony is the least credible type of evidence. With that being said, there is no requirement in science that any event be witnessed. If the event took place at all, there would be evidence of it. In the case of theories, the evidence for them are the verified predictions that they make. This is why we have theories.
+Floyd Burrows Well, 4.5B years ago, it was part of Earth. Once it formed, it was about 14000 miles away. As the Earth cooled, it's rotation slowed and Luna began to drift, though much slower at the time.
+Floyd Burrows Why would the moon be a limiting factor? Yes, it's getting farther from Earth, but it's a well understood phenomenon that took 4.5B years to get where it is.
+Floyd Burrows First, a tiger is not a cat. Second, you're right, I don't know how it all started. But, lucky for me, scientists are working on it. You don't know how it started either. Claiming that a deity did it is just that, a claim. There's no evidence to back that up.And you're right, we were both taught the same thing. The difference is that I actually understand it.
+Eric Nachreiner tell me again why the moon is not a limiting factor . I know it moves away from the earth about one and a half inches every year over billions of years which is what you need for evolution to be true how can it be billions of years again.
+Eric Nachreiner you only understand what you've been taught I was taught the same stuff I'm just smart enough to not believe it that that making isn't you're talking about conform all by itself I believe that God designed everything and he also designed DNA so you really don't want to get into this discussion because you can't explain how I even started P and like I said before comparing a cat to a tiger is like comparing a pygmy to a Norwegian it's still a cat or it still in human being monkeys are not human being now there is banana now there is a chimpanzee.
+Floyd Burrows You can tell the difference between tigers and cats too, but you still believe that they are related. And yet, we are more closely related to chimps than tigers are to cats. The difference is that I understand the mechanism by which they are related. The best you can do is guess. It reminds me of Ray Comfort, who can't make up his mind as to which animals go with which "kinds".
+Eric Nachreiner did you know humans and bananas share 50% of their DNA that doesn't make bananas 50% human so I don't care what you come up with percentage of DNA white its a bunch of bullcrap you gotta understand that you can look and tell the difference between humans and chimps and you can look and tell the difference between a banana and a human it doesn't make it a percentage of human it's funny that you believe that though.
+Eric Nachreiner that's a name man gave cats not god its obviously the same type of animal and monkeys are not humans so you can go on with your crap if you want but that's a total fact. is the same as calling pygmies are humans just like Norwegians
+Floyd Burrows First, tigers are not cats. They are felines. And they share 95% of their DNA with cats. Chimpanzees, which are not monkeys, share 98% of their DNA with humans. And, yes, their intelligence level is very close to humans. But, more importantly, they are very similar to humans in both emotional and social development.
+Eric Nachreiner a tiger is a cat monkeys are not humans cats think same intelligence as each other but monkeys do not have the same intelligence of humans if that's the question you're asking.
+Floyd Burrows Expand and stretch do not mean the same thing. And the Hebrew word "shamayim" doesn't mean universe. There wasn't a word for universe, that's why they used the term heaven and earth. It represented the ground and everything above it.
+Eric Nachreiner again you have your religion and I have mine. and you still don't have a reply for why the Bible says the universe is expanding encircle in Hebrew does means fear imagine you are looking at a picture of the earth can you see the fear in the earth or if you're looking at it would you just say it's a circle but either way the word still means fear or round and expand means the exact same thing as stretch so what does the Bible say that earth is hanging on nothing that whole verse that I gave you completely and accurately describes it all why is it the over 2000 years ago they knew this but yet we're just fine in and out in the last five hundred years that the earth was round and in the last 50 years that the universe was expanding.
+Eric Nachreiner in order for it to be science it has to be observable and you cannot observe something changing from a cat to something other than a cat. it is not even real science.
+Eric Nachreiner but you go on believing there's no limiting factors I looked at a guy's page earlier that was disputing limiting factors and he still believes in the geological, and all geologists to tell you that it only exist in the textbooks.
+Eric Nachreiner it's not even real science and darling wasn't even a real scientist it baffles me that you guys can't even believe it almost like you don't have any common sense you probably watch Star Trek most of those guys I know didn't have any common sense they were really book smart though.
+Eric Nachreiner and when I say better I mean something different like a banana camp become a cat or anything else the cat always produces a cat a bacterial always produces a bacteria any human always produces a human and an ape always produces a name.
+Eric Nachreiner you have been pretty civil but you know as well as I know that genetic coding does not allow for anything to mutate into something better we all know that so for you to sit here and say that evolution is a serious fact it's kind of crazy because we both know that genetic coding doesn't even allow for it.
+Floyd Burrows At no point during this conversation have I been mad. I have been enjoying this very civil discourse. And YouTube isn't a christian site. It is a public forum in which anyone can comment on a video and, hopefully, start a lively conversation. I enjoy hearing other people's views, even if I don't agree with them.
+Floyd Burrows I have read many and none of them are truly "limiting factors". This is simply a claim people make about a phenomenon that they heard about, and extrapolated on, without actually understanding the phenomenon or it's cause.I was hoping you had some new information to share.
I bet that if you look them up you can find all of them you don't need me on here teaching you about how foolish all the series are there are people way more qualified than me to do that.
+Floyd Burrows I'm not sure what you mean by "my theories". They're not mine. They belong to everyone. And which ones suck? Gravitational theory? Atomic theory? Electromagnetic theory? Germ theory of disease? Oh, wait. You don't believe in that one.And my Grandfather wasn't a monkey. Clearly, you don't understand evolution. We are descended from an earlier primate. Chromosome 2 supports that.Also, Darwin formulated the theory of evolution while studying many different species.
+Eric Nachreiner there's so many limiting factors that prove the earth is a young earth and not billions of years old that I could list in forever and you still wouldn't believe it but you need those billions of years to prove your theory and you can't have it because there's too many limiting factors and the fact that all those theories suck anyway.
+Eric Nachreiner the answers right in front of your face don't be mad at me because all your theories suck and you believe your grandpa is a monkey and the father of your religion dropped out of college and became theologist later on Charles Darwin I'm talking about he based his whole theory off of maggots thinking they evolved from nothing into a fly so you keep believing your bull crap I don't really care either way I don't know why you come on a Christian site and try to talk crap to Christians but we don't believe any of it can't fit all the planets in the universe no one little. And you can't explain how life started on this earth but whenever you figure it out and there's some kind of proof then you let me know but you can't disprove the Bible anything in it even though it's the most scrutinized book in the history of the world.
+Floyd Burrows I've seen his debates too, and I don't believe he won any of them. Probably because he comes up with some really crazy hypotheses that just defies all logic and reasoning.
+Eric Nachreiner yeah he's just a starter but if you going to some of the people that go into molecular biology and understand how complex it is can you really tell me how that stuff got started all by itself and tell me how DNA strand got started I don't buy it so where did all this come from and where is the fossil record of every animal in this world that supposedly evolved from a certain type of animal or even a single cell organism. Kent Hovind debate some of the biggest names in evolution and he kills them because they can explain so I've watched it all too and I've watched a lot of creation science and nothing that ever was explained to me in school makes sense and why are all these molecular biology saying there is a creator why is why does Albert Einstein say that there is a creator. are you smarter than they are I don't think so I think you just need to look at it a little deeper.
+Floyd Burrows I've been through all of Kent Hovinds work. It wasn't worth the time. It seems as though he doesn't understand basic physics, biology or chemistry.
+Eric Nachreiner if you're looking for some good creation science instead of me teaching you all this stuff look up Kent Hovind on a YouTube channel not only if you watch his creation seminars 1 through 7 there about an hour and a half piece of peace but you can also do questions and answers and he'll be glad to answer any of those questions good guy.
+Eric Nachreiner the word actually has three different meanings but that's pretty common amongst all languages that one word would have more than one meeting like I said you go on believing what you want.
+Eric Nachreiner maybe you just you just don't know anything and don't even know your regular scientific but the smaller things get the more complex I get in life
+Eric Nachreiner will scientists can't even do it today in an environment that is abundant with life and you want to tell me that happen magically all by itself when the planet didn't have any life at all you just have to use your noggin use that bean between your ears
+Floyd Burrows Why can't life come from non-living material? All life is made up of atoms, which are non-living. At what point does living matter become non-living?
+Floyd Burrows Heavens doesn't mean the universe, but the sky. And stretch doesn't mean expand, unless you're going to change its meaning throughout the bible, which would make all the other verses that it's in not make any sense.
+Eric Nachreiner I guess you need to go on believing that all the planets in the universe came from a small dot about the size of a period at the end of this sentence. Then you can also believe that life started from non living material. That takes more faith to believe than God did it. But that's on you. The only thing a guy like you can do is look at it from both directions. If you think that heavens isn't the same as universe and stretch isn't the same as expand then I disagree. If you want the truth you will find it. But I can tell you it is not what we learned in school.
+Floyd Burrows The bible doesn't say anything about an expanding universe. And it says that the Earth is both round and a square.
Japanese Healing Reiki & Spirituality
Reiki (霊気?, /ˈreɪkiː/) is a spiritual practice developed in 1922 by Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui, which has since been adapted by various teachers of ...
My compliments on one of the clearer, more factually grounded backgrounds
and definitions of Reiki I've seen. You see familiar with Japanese sources.
The discernment to source quietly productive authorities rather than the
mass produced, crystal encrusted, profit driven experts is all too rare. We
all do the very best we know how. Still, "Reiki Masters" charging you to
learn 14 or more specific hand positions in one class who then charge to
learn in the very next that Reiki goes wherever needed in the client's body
are all too very common. If I want to pay for a seat where you have to
leave your brains at the door, I can go to any number of churches or bars.
From a production value note, the audio, however, is less clear. I strongly
suggest you do what it takes to keep it from distorting because loud does
NOT equal "LOUD AND CLEAR," only loud. The woman's voice is obviously over
the volume red line. This distorts her audio fidelity so badly at times one
has to strain to make out the words. The fact is I couldn't finish
listening. One assumes you cover a subject to make it more easily
understood, not harder. If you can't control the quality of your output,
don't put your name on it.