It seems that Darwinism becoming outdated and obsolete.

a reply to: Phantom423

There was an introduction explaining this " guys " scientific background so either you are not watching the video or don't understand English
Why
WhI lie?
If you understood or sincerely listened to what he is talking about it is overwhelming, really it is and that's the point

Don't lie, it's not necessary and it makes you look like a fool

a reply to: strongfp

You should watch the video before commenting
If you have you havnt comprehended what was said
Have another go

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

This is a tough call but this thread is a failure BP
It failed when you asked a bunch of ignorant non scientificaly minded atheists to watch videos about science
They are never going to watch anything related to science or anything that may force
them to think, they don't understand science
Look at the replies that state " I didn't watch the video but", then they reply like they understand the argument
Point scoring attacks on you personally BP by so many, generally because they havnt a real clue to deal with the issue examined

I really should have included abiogenesis as the primary topic in the thread title, as the lectures are centered around abiogenesis (my mistake), however, the first lecture does go into "junk DNA" and Common Descent, which pertains to specifically to Darwinism.

The sad part is, this wasn't intended as an attack on atheism. I mentioned that at the beginning and the end. I simply want science to move forward from these antiquated fallacies without theism vs atheism being an issue. There is clearly a designer. Whether or not that designer is sentient will always be the philosophical question. There is no such thing as chaos or random, but only simplicity vs degree of complexity. There is no such thing as impossible, only degree of probability.

originally posted by: agenda51
the theory that we evolved from monkeys has as much legitimacy as bigfoot.

Yes its the greatest intellectual smoke and mirror next to Columbus discovered america.

And by the way has anyone ever read the old Egyptian creation explanations? They really are all about rising up from the muck the procreative pool of stuff just like evolutionary cell development out of nothing. So nothing new just a modern day spin on old priest myth crowed control B.C. 3000 explanation of pop pop fiz fiz wow its a fish monkey! And look that one can fly!

a reply to: Phantom423

Because there is no such thing as random, there is only simplicity, complexity, and immeasurable complexity. Either way you cut it, creation is not without a designer. Whether the designer is sentient or not is the root issue, and I have not made any dogmatic statements about that issue in this thread.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Here's a thought experiment (a "gedanken" as some physicists call it):

You're a scientist on a deep space mission. Your job is to observe and report on any life forms you encounter on the expedition.

You arrive in a planetary system where one or two planets appear to harbor the conditions for life. The spacecraft lands on one of the planets. You plan your trek into the unknown to make observations and collect your samples for analysis in your lab.

During the course of your research, you come across many different forms of "life" - even high forms of life that appear to be cognizant but they all look very different in appearance. The natives are friendly and pose no objection to your taking samples. So you collect dozens of samples and bring them back to your lab for analysis.

During the molecular part of your analysis, you extract a molecule which appears to be similar to DNA, but not quite the same. You do a cross-species analysis, align the sequences of this DNA-like molecule and compare your results. The analysis reveals that all the samples show a homology of more than 90% (recall that the appearance of the subjects is widely different).

What is your first observation given this evidence? Why would all these samples, which are vastly different in appearance and behavior, be homologous to this extent?

If I am to make assumptions:

1) Quantum Biological Design (while I don't fully subscribe to pilot wave theory, think Bohmian wavefunction)

2) The similarities could be a response to environmental conditions similar to that of Earth.

3) Common ancestry would probably be my last assumption.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


Ok but you understand that the this vs that was an intentional assault? The idea of superior beings constructing man physical and spiritual for a purpose coupled with master/lord relationship. Enter the "modern" idea of randomness and relativity and not like yin and yang but like science, even in its infancy, all knowing. All else is swept aside along with any associated ideas as functional support foundation stones of western society from the title wave. But it hasn't worked. If there is no God and its a stupid idea then there are no natural rights of man ect.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Youtube videos do not constitute any form of proof. As for Dr Tour. I too am a synthetic organic chemist (PhD level as a well). Thta does not make one any form of expert in evolution. My bioinformatics degree however gives me much more expertese to speak about things genetic (and evolution is genetic). So when someone waves a scientist around as an expert, one best make sure he's qualified to speak about it. He is not. His research in in nanotech, not even biological nanotech. So he no, he's not a good source.

Further more, you are falling into the mistake of equating how life started with how it changed. Evolution is not in any way shape or form talking about how life started. so again that is another fail.

Lastly I'm a very religious scientist, I just happen not to be part of the Abrahamic family of religions. You have latched onto this guy because he's a Christian and he is saying the things you want to hear. Darwin was a good Christian, ponder that.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Why must the discussion always be about evolution vs an intelligent being i.e. a creator who can only be the Judeo-Christian god? There are many other possibilities. It's a narrow conversation which only offers two alternatives.

Why not leave religion and personal beliefs out of the conversation for a moment. Can you come up with any other hypothesis which may be on equal footing with evolution or the intelligent being?

Just because we don't have a definitive answer, doesn't mean we have to settle for only two possibilities. We may never have a definitive answer. Science is about evidence and discovery. It builds on itself. There's no door at the end of the hallway that closes permanently. The door is always open for new evidence whether it's a new interpretation of existing evidence or de novo evidence.

Think outside of the box. That's usually the guy/gal who wins the prize.

Because a creator, whether a sentient God, or a self-perpetuating program seems to be the inescapable conclusion. You should look into von Neumann chains and quantum decoherence.

I didn't include religion. In fact, aside from disclosing Dr. Tour's bias, I made it a point not to make this about theism vs atheism.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

And evolution is prohibited by a "self-perpetuating program?"

a reply to: Noinden

Dude that was a nice cheep swipe with the you-tube comment. YT being simply a form of communication but you turn it into a pejorative to help your argument along bravo.

a reply to: Logarock

It is not a swipe. You debate science with science. Show a published paper, or some data that can be debated. Otherwise its intellectual masterbation. Youtube is not a reliable source, any twat can make a youtube video.

The point remains, the person being held up as a champion against evolution, is not qualified.

a reply to: Noinden

Youtube videos do not constitute any form of proof

I never said the video proved anything, but what if the EDUCATIONAL LECTURE had come from vimeo. Would it be ok then?

I too am a synthetic organic chemist (PhD level as a well).

Good. Then maybe you could address some of the points in Dr. Tour's lecture, and educate the skeptics in this thread, otherwise, what's the point in telling us your profession?

You have latched onto this guy because he's a Christian and he is saying the things you want to hear. Darwin was a good Christian, ponder that.

That is a very bold assumption on your part. I am a Christian, but I don't usually follow Christians who claim to be scientists because they usually turn out to be idiots. I came across this video completely unintentionally. But thanks for the assumption. They always make me feel better.

a reply to: Noinden

The point remains, the person being held up as a champion against evolution, is not qualified.

As he, himself, has stated.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

Yet these creation centric types love to wave him around like a new messiah or something

a reply to: Raggedyman

I did watch the video. And the first 5 minutes of the first video showed me literally a Kent Hovind style circus.
How do cells work chemically?
Seriously?
Do we need to go back to grade 12 chemistry science class to understand that?

The man is show boating, a snake oil salesman. Using his credentials to please a certain group of people. I put him on par with Richard Dawkins, a man who knows far too much, but also knows how to please a certain audience.

a reply to: Phage

Clearly he didn't hold that sentiment when he made the first lecture, else he would not have criticized evolution. Maybe he had a change of heart.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

His videos are not "public discussions." They are monologues.

a reply to: Phage

They were lectures.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yes. Monologues. Not discussions. Not debates with others who may be more qualified. He said himself he's not qualified to engage in such.