Evolution is Wrong...interesting video (2 Viewers)

[Mike375]

BTW. It actually says in the Bible that God sentenced women to endure the pain of childbirth as punishment for the apple incident. Too bad we got assigned to a mysogynist product developer.

And also weeds and thorns in the crops.

The Bible indicates God made a perfect creation and then Eve knocked off the fruit from the special tree and God then said he would throw some spanners in the works.

As a side note is the serpent who tempts Eve a snake or does it become a snake after Adam and Eve have their picnic with the forbidden fruit?

 

[Mike375]

Or the way that the ants in the garden see him as God. That's my favourite.

And don't forget the little lizards.

Tomorrow they all have a big day. The lawn gets mowed

 

[Mike375]

Here is another very well put together videa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[Galaxiom]

Mike:

It is clear to me that your description as an independent thinker wavering through your life from believer to atheist is a total self delusion.

After getting to know where you stand on matters of faith I would be very surprised if you are not from a Jewish background.

 

[Mike375]

Mike:

It is clear to me that your description as an independent thinker wavering through your life from believer to atheist is a total self delusion.

After getting to know where you stand on matters of faith I would be very surprised if you are not from a Jewish background.

I will show your post to a mate of mine No, Irish Catholic. Both grandmothers born in Australia of Irish immigrants and both grandfathers Irish immigrants. My last name is McGuire and my mother's maiden maiden name was McEldowney.

But there is a simple reason that my position shifts about. Like most people I don't know but unlike most people I don't have a preferred position. If I become convinced of what Krauss says in his video and the flat universe can start from nothing then fine by me, I will jump on the wagon. If the same happens on the other side then fine by me.

However, I do have a very slight preference for the atheist position. Reason being is if "proof" means I jump on the religious wagon then my natural laziness will become a problem. That is where is atheism is better, you don't have to do anything.

In the other thread you said several times the strength of science was not holding onto a position that was being proven wrong, you naturally would move in the other direction. I guess that is how I am with this topic.

As a side note if what Krauss is dead wright I don't think that rules at a lower horspower set of Gods. Sometimes I think those ancient blokes had all thos different gods were on the right track. Those gods were like a jump or two above us.

Edit: I thought you might make some comments on the Krauss video I posted.

 

[Lightwave]

Mike good luck with your theories - I see no evidence for them.

I still consider the logic on which they are based to be flawed.

But give you your dues you do post a real variety of videos.

 

[Mike375]

Mike good luck with your theories - I see no evidence for them.

I still consider the logic on which they are based to be flawed.

I am sure there is the odd rough spot that could need a clean up and polish

 

[Minkey]

It is about 60 minutes in length. Will make you think and maybe change your ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw&feature=related

Yes it is an interesting video however a lot of the 'facts' are fundamental flawed and some are completely wrong.

I believe we are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs but occasionally some video or article will really 'get my goat' as it were (non-brits you might have to look that one up ) and this is one of them.

I never normally vent on the internet as it's not a great media for debate but I would like to comment on some of the points raised. Warning it is quite long and I will confess I have not watch the whole thing and I'm no way an expert so I'll pre-seed all my comments with "as I understand it":

8:50 - Stanley Miller Experiment

They state it was discredited because it did not recreate the conditions of the Earth when life could possibility start - correct. However they fail to mention that he did an unpublished experiment which did recreated the conditions more acutely and produced even more amino acids clicky

10:50 By doing an experiment and poking a cell with a sterile needle to cause it's 'stuff' as they so eloquently put it to leak out and you can't make a living cell out of them - erm I not surprised as you've separated all the components required to make a cell! They are also not recreating the conditions at the possible time 'life' started - it wasn't poked with a sterile needle. the very reason the Stanley Miller experiment was discredited. You can't have it both ways.

15:50 Darwin Theory is as it is a theory whither Darwin believed it or not, whither is completely true or not does not mean it doesn't have some merit. That's what science is all about (take the CERN experiments for example)

22:05

the entire know universe in contracted down to a state of infinite density at this point all matter and energy, physical space and time came into being

It's believed and again it is a theory that it expanded rapidly and there were significant events that occurred during this expansion. Particles, quarks, fundamental forces etc were being destroyed and created during this expansion not nothing - BANG - Everything Big Bang Timeline

Oh and by the way the cosmic radiation does as they said indicate the expansion of the universe from a beginning but crucially it did not appear until 370,000 years after the beginning. That may seem insignificant but it is a huge time considering how quickly it started.

25:23 Supernatural mmm interesting choice of word - something that is not natural or exists out of our universe, yeh I could go with that but that does not "point clearly, powerfully and persuasively in the direction of a creator" that is pure conjecture as is other possibilities.

Why cant this supernatural event point to: matter (Undiscovered or not) in a state we can't observe? that fulfils the criteria of a supernatural event as do many others (multiple dimensions for example).

27:40 - the possible range of gravity????? erm to me this doesn't make sense - the formula they showed and presumable what the are referring to is the gravitational constant therefore you can not apply this to a 'range'. The way it’s described seems to say that along this ruler there are different erm amounts or strength as they say of gravity and our universe is in the right range for life to exist. A constant can't be a specific value in a range. Gravitational force is not one value it is different throughout the universe (Black Holes anyone).

If they are trying to say it's a massive coincidence that the VALUE of gravity, along with all the other principals for life then yes it is but it only apples (as far as we know) for life on EARTH it can not be arbitrarily applied to the universe.

28:54 The cosmological constant - they say it "describes the expansion speed of space in the universe and if it's too fast material objects can't form"

This bit first. No it is not it's a modification proposed by Einstein of his theory of general relatively to achieve a STATIONARY universe and he described it as his biggest blunder because the universe is not stationary.

"This constant is fine tuned to 1 part in a trillion, trillion etc....." using a small number arbitrarily applied to throwing a dart from where ever into a thing so small.............what! How is this relative?

30:05 Nuclear force - poor science again nuclear force does not bind atoms together that’s electromagnetic force, it binds hadrons together which are made up of quarks that are blinded together by the strong force which btw remains at a constant strength no matter how far apart they are hence why no free quarks have ever been discovered (yet!). If the nuclear force was different who is to say that a different type of hadron can not be made?

Right I'm stopping here I know scientific theories are as they are theories, some are flawed and debatable and some have been proven but idle conjecture based on incorrect information does not strengthen a view point.

Oh and one other thing - where is the other view point in this video? it completely biased and the only scientist I saw comment was that Jonathan Wells who btw questions the medical consensus that HIV causes AIDS without any scientific evidence, make of that what you will.

 

[Lightwave]

where is the other view point in this video?

In Mike's defence although there is no other view in the video he does link to an alternative view that you would find entirely ok
see

Here is another very well put together videa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[Mike375]

Minkey,

Thanks for doing that.

But I think you should see the second half of the video.

I thought there was a lot more than one person in the video from the science side of the table. Not that means all that much as it could be funding influenced.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Not that means all that much as it could be funding influenced.

Funding is the Achilles' heel of research. The outcome has to match expectations or the grants could dry up.

 

[Rabbie]

Funding is the Achilles' heel of research. The outcome has to match expectations or the grants could dry up.

Which is why peer review is an important part of the procedure.

The creationists do seem to get getting confused about evolution. It is not about the origins of life - it is about the development of life. That's why many christian leaders can accept Evolution but still say that God provided the initial spark to start life.

There also seems to be confusion about the meaning of the word "Theory" in scientific use. In that context it does not mean a a piece of speculative guessing but rather a model of what is thought to be happening. This should explain all current facts about the subject in question and also be able to make predictions of future observations. If these predictions prove inaccurate then the the theory needs to be modified. Thus Newton's theory of Gravity explained the facts observable when it was derived but later observations needed to be explained by Einstein's work. I am quite certain that there is still more work to be done on this.

 

[Mike375]

The creationists do seem to get getting confused about evolution. It is not about the origins of life - it is about the development of life. That's why many christian leaders can accept Evolution but still say that God provided the initial spark to start life.

In my experience people from either side will more often than not lump origin of life and evoluton together.

Actually it is like pre Big Bang and Big Bang

 

[Rabbie]

In my experience people from either side will more often than not lump origin of life and evoluton together.

Actually it is like pre Big Bang and Big Bang

Not at all. Richard Dawkings and the Bishop of Oxford are both very active for Evolution (against Creationism) but have agreed to differ on the origins of life.

I believe that the Vatican now also take the view that Evolution is part of God's plan.

 

[Mike375]

Not at all. Richard Dawkings and the Bishop of Oxford are both very active for Evolution (against Creationism) but have agreed to differ on the origins of life.

I believe that the Vatican now also take the view that Evolution is part of God's plan.

I meant the average person. Most of them think evolution covers from starting of life and then onwards.

A far as the Catholic church goes when I was at school the religious class said evolution was OK but at some point God beathed a sould into man. That would be around when I was 15 or 16, so about 1963-64.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Can dogs evolve into cats?

 

[Rabbie]

Can dogs evolve into cats?

NO And cats can't mutate into dogs either

 

[Rabbie]

I meant the average person. Most of them think evolution covers from starting of life and then onwards.

No accounting for ignorance.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

NO And cats can't mutate into dogs either

Ta


You mean its evolutionary impossible?

Why not?

 

[Alc]

In my experience people from either side will more often than not lump origin of life and evoluton together.

That came up a long while back when you wouldn't accept the fact that I thought evolution was valid unless I could also explain what was around pre-Big Bang. The assumption that everyone uses a term in the same way that you do has led to confusion here more than once.