Netflix Documentary (s)

I am an avid Netflix Documentary watcher, and I saw one lastnight called Religulious by Bill Maher. I know religion is a touchy subject, but hoyl smokes, does this ever bring some light to a very taboo topic. I recommend watching it.

Has anyone seen any other good ones? Street Thief is another really good one!

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

This brief article explains my position pretty well. Please read, it's short.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

cool, its a theory based on that very instant a chemical became functioning reproducing life.  I get the idea and understand the theory, but again it teters on the unknown.  since we don't know exactly how just yet everything else is plausible until proven otherwise.  it definetely doesn't disprove evolution by any means.

without evolution how would the billions of species that have existed and gone extinct over the last 3 billion years have not just dissapeared completely without branching off and continuously evolving into new ones.

Look at dogs, a pomeranian for example.  that pomeranian "evolved" from a wolf.  If you breed a pomeranian with a pomeranian...you get more pomeranians.  now today's dogs may have not come about by "natural" selection, but it was a selection none the less.

That famous poster of 4 or 5 figures starting with a chimp leading to upright man is an abreviation.  Many don't know there are hundreds of hominid species leading up to ourselves today and hundreds more undiscovered species to fill in the gaps.

Personally I have a hard time with intelligent design in the literal term as some like to practice their belief of it.  (1 example) If a designer be so intelligent maybe he could have taken the time to equip our hearts (the most important muscle in our body) with more than one artery to supply blood & oxygen to it.  but why would we evolve a faulty heart one might ask? because for evolution to work one only needs to reproduce to succeed, it doesn't matter if a specie lives to be a hundred years old never to die of a heart attack as long as that individual breeds & reproduces to pass on its own unique genes that specie will continue one and possibly have another specie or 2 or 6 branch off from it if there are other mtations that succeed in keeping the organism alive.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:

gst Said:
Multi, it certainly appears your "faith" is science based, No problem, it is your choice. So why the angst over someone choosing their own manner of "faith" based in religion?

Thru out time there have been happenings science simply can not "explain".  Perhaps it is because science is incomplete,perhaps it is because there is something even more base than science.

There has been and always will be things science has not yet proven, or explained. a simple solar eclips was once thought to be a dragon consuming the sun in a battle against good & evil, but we all know today that isn't true.  I think science has gone well beyond the elementary levels of the bible itself and will continue to go further every day.  just because we don't know how something works or where it came from doesn't mean we can just credit it to invisible figures in the sky.  how much more scientific discovery will it take before people like you start running out of excuses arguments?

when the earth was proven to be round folks like yourself said the same thing, now we are discovering new planets outside our own solar system and outside our own galaxy virtualy by the minute and still the same rebuttal...it's just a theory, or science is incomplete.

When you pass from this world perhaps then and only then will you know for certain.
 

How long must one be dead before you "pass" as you like to call it.  I've been dead for a couple hours and never met any tall long haired blue eyed hippies from the middle east.

Wow multi. Sort of full of yourself and your science intellect much? You think all Christians flunked out of high school and follow Christ cuz we're ignorant of science? Afraid not. The more I learned the more stunned I was in the order and beauty of the universe and the implausibilty that we simply evolved from space dust. Like finding a fine swiss watch laying on the sidewalk and saying "gee, it must have autoassembled itself." A single microbe's complexity is like an entire warehouse of different watches all running flawlessly in concert with each other. Yep, sheer random luck that all the pieces autoassembled slowly over the eons. Riiight... Scientists have yet to make anything live from basic ingredients. Can you explain why not since you have all the answers?
 

Full of myself and "my" scientific intellect? not hardly, everything I have said can be seen checked and proven by yourself. 

did you stop paying attention to science after high school? unless your definition of living is making a swiss watch...yes we have mixed the basic ingredients under the proper conditions and created functioning genetic material.

my question to you is, what will it take? I mean how much proof does one need.  the bible itself can be disproven verse by verse, story by story all day long today in 2012, yet the religious keep forming their own beliefs of how they think it should be to suit their own needs and comfort their own fears of death and their wrongs in life.

atheism is a word to describe one who does not believe in gods, it is not a group, nor a religion on chooses, it just means we don't believe it.  I don't believe greek mythology just as you don't, but at the time, the greeks believed in it just as much so as you do Jesus today. 

mu;ti, people who are truly comfortable in their faith do not have to mock others and their faith, they simply beleive in the faith they accept.

Where have I ever talked of "any tall longhaired blue eyed hippies from the middle east?" or religious decrees of the world being flat?

One can beleive in science and STILL have faith in a higher power, perhaps you should open yourself to the possibilities that may exist outside your text books and experiments.  

Multi I'm sure you can define birth in black and white, proven scientific terms created under the "right circumstances",even after seeing thousands of calves being born, I still veiw it as the "miracle of birth" that is a result of some higher power with a greater plan than you, I ,your scientists or any religious fanatic. 

Mock me if you will.

When your science can create life itself as I witness each spring and have as well with the birthes of my kids,then can you convince me there is nothing more than "science" in our lives.
If you can lay your hand on the beating heart of your newborn child and not beleive perhaps you have been blessed with a miracle, you have an empty life indeed.

Play catch with your "functioning genetic material" or take it hunting , I'll take the miracle of my faith  I call my kids any day.

Place your faith in a scientific text if you wish, but making snide remacks regarding others faith only tends to show you to be defensive and less than sure of your own.  

I have no problem with you beleiving in science and only science, I will accept
what draws me into beleiveing there is something more.

Mock people of faith if you choose.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

ok so we have abondoned the bible and specific religions on this discussion and are going with "higher power" now, well in this case I can't argue beyond current known science and discovery so we just have to guess and make up whatever makes us happy beyond today's knowledge horizon.

By the way I wasn't mocking you or anyone else if thats how you took it.

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

A pomeranian shares The VAST majority of its genes with the wolf.
http://www2.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm

THat's how complex life is. Even a tiny change in the code results in astounding differences! Tiny tweeks are possible.

Again, please explain origin of life you can PROVE. you have EVIDENCE of, not just faith in Darwin's old story.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
cool, its a theory based on that very instant a chemical became functioning reproducing life.  I get the idea and understand the theory, but again it teters on the unknown.  since we don't know exactly how just yet everything else is plausible until proven otherwise.  it definetely doesn't disprove evolution by any means.

Even a long haired blue eyed mediteranian hippie?

Multi I never started out based in religion or the Bible so I don;t beleive I have abandonded it.

Can you show me where it has been "proven" a higher power or state of existance does not exist in anything more than a "theory"?

By your own admission then isn't anything "plausible"?

Multi, you clearly are a pretty intelligent guy, you do understand there is a difference between faith and religion don;t you?

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10
mu;ti, people who are truly comfortable in their faith do not have to mock others and their faith, they simply beleive in the faith they accept.

I would have to say that isn't what I've seen in real life and from many on this site. Muslims come to mind.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10
guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

I don't recall people of faith mocking others on buddy. Let's see some links to threads that support that claim.

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

guywhofishes Said:
I don't recall people of faith mocking others on buddy. Let's see some links to threads that support that claim.

You trying to tell me you've never seen any Islam bashing on this site?

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
Can you show me where it has been "proven" a higher power or state of existance does not exist in anything more than a "theory"?
 

There will never be a way to prove a higher power doesn't exist, simply because there will always be undiscovered territories that a higher power may hide.  If this is your final arguement, you win hands down.  even once we soar beyond the big bang, there will be a whole new horizon many will claim the creator is lurking behind, unable to prove or disprove.

difference in faith & religion...yes, I have faith in things, like humanity, and definetely gravity etc.


A pomeranian shares The VAST majority of its genes with the wolf.
http://www2.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm

THat's how complex life is. Even a tiny change in the code results in astounding differences! Tiny tweeks are possible.

Again, please explain origin of life you can PROVE. you have EVIDENCE of, not just faith in Darwin's old story.

Just as you share the vast majority of your genes with one of 5 groups of humans from central Africa.  that pendulum swings both ways, every specie on earth shares the vast majority of its genes with an ancestor, and that ancestor shares its genes and on down the line.  and the opposite works as well, look at convergent evolution, two nearly identical looking species but with huge differences in DNA.  Just because the pomeranian shares family DNA with a wolf doesn't mean its a wolf, no matter how many pomeranians you breed together none of them will ever give birth to a wolf.

and a tiny change in the code over and over again for three billion years in millions of different directions and developing species will get you some pretty radical looking differences.  That pomeranian came about in a hundred years or so, give it a thousand more or a million, throw a bulldog into the mix the possibilities are endless. evolution isn't one fish growing feet while no one is looking, its generation after generation of subtle changes.  some work, some don't, the ones that work go on to reproduce passing their new trait along the chain.

It's not "faith" in darwins story, I've seen it work, its all around us every day.  you just have to understand it.

heres a cool video, proof of nothing, just a cool video.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/origins-life.html

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

I see God's work all around me too. You just have to understand it. ;)

I'll patiently wait for man to create life from lifeless planet starter ingredients. Until then, you really have to admit you don't know how it could have started and don't have an answer. Why is it science can't do that, yet it claims it happened on it's own in the primordial soup on earth? Talk about fantasy and tall tales. You believe in something science has tried to prove for over a century and has gotten no where, even with all we know, can't create a simple life ingredient, let alone life. Epic fail of a cornerstone of evolution, no doubt about it.

 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

I don't want to debate the merits of faith and believing in a higher power. I am pretty much a science guy. But do have faith in something bigger than me. Having said that... I think those who question how it would have been possible for life to develop by chance forget just how vast and complex the primordial soup was and have a tough time grasping just how long a billion years is. A billion years is hard for the human mind to wrap its mind around. Just because scientists havent been able to find the right combination in a couple of decades, does not mean it couldn't have happened by chance over the course of a billion years in earths primordial oceans.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

guywhofishes, I think scientists who treat the theory of evolution as certain are very poor scientists.  If they work in that field and want to search great.  However, what bothers me is this:  if you loose your car keys and search for five minutes then find them do you keep searching?  Of course not you would not be very bright to do so.  That is what science is supposed to do, keep searching for answers.  The problem is I know many scientists that are so sure of evolution that they think it's a waste of money to look for any other answers.  That's a poor scientist.

If you read some of the books I suggested you will find that evolving even a single cell animal has about the same chance as expecting a Ferrari to appear in your living room.  Keys in the ignition.  You will only understand that when you understand the theory of irreversible complexity.

I have seen genetic anomalies within species.  I have never seen it retained into another generation, nor give the individual advantage within any environment.   I have often seen them removed from the gene pool by starvation or predation.  One of my fellow scientists like to say more chlorine more chlorine the gene pool is contaminated.  I know that's old, but still humorous.

Neither evolution or religion will be proven.  Both require faith.  I personally find it interesting that much of the Bible is backed up by ancient secular historians.  Search and you will find that information.  I provided some authors in past posts.

Oh, just as a point of interest to believers only, I don't want to bother the rest of you.  Are you familiar with some of the more liberal seminaries that claim Isaiah had to be written after the birth of Christ?  Well two years ago they discovered older scrolls written by Isaiah that predate what we had by I think 1300 years.  Blows those theologians out of the ball park.

For those who have studied religion for months, or even a couple of years, it takes much longer.  Theologians witha  PhD. spend their lives on one book.

CPO's picture
CPO
Offline
Joined: 6/13/11

 Wow, thread started out about documentaries on NETFLIX and now is about religion?  If you want a good Documentary try 'Waiting for SuperMan'.... one of the best I have seen.

As far as religion..... I do not follow any organized religion.  But who could spend a day on the Missouri River, or in a ND duck slough, or in the ND badlands chasing Mule Deer and not ask themselves how is everything so Perfect?  So for all you science guys, explain why this only exists here.... From Honey bees to apple trees, everything in nature on this planet is absolutely perfect - no where else that we have found, so in the interim I will put my faith in the lord on my own terms without human interpretation.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:

Can you show me where it has been "proven" a higher power or state of existance does not exist in anything more than a "theory"?
 

There will never be a way to prove a higher power doesn't exist, simply because there will always be undiscovered territories that a higher power may hide.  If this is your final arguement, you win hands down.  even once we soar beyond the big bang, there will be a whole new horizon many will claim the creator is lurking behind, unable to prove or disprove.

difference in faith & religion...yes, I have faith in things, like humanity, and definetely gravity etc.

 

Multi, I can guarantee you there are no provens when it comes to humanity, history has proven this, so it appears you have faith in something as questionable as what you beleive religion is.

And it seems you do understand faith, now simply understand every person has their own meansof determining what they place their faith in and perhaps you will begin to understand religion.

As I said at the start, I am not a particularily religious person ( actually for some of the reasons listed here), but I have a very strong faith so I understand how those that chose to develope their faith based in religion have as strong a beleif in their religion as you do in science. 

Who is right and who is wrong in an absolute relm? WAY to big a question for me to know, I only know what I beleive in..

Faith.  

With out it, what drives us?  

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Calories

 Nuke the Whales

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

If I evolved from a monkey, then why do we still have monkeys?
Some of us where lucky enough to evolve and other monkeys just didnt?
How about now, can a monkey mate with a human?

Neat

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

Yuck!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

johnr Said:
If I evolved from a monkey, then why do we still have monkeys?
Some of us where lucky enough to evolve and other monkeys just didnt?
How about now, can a monkey mate with a human?

 

Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: 12/14/10

 The humanzee (also known as the Chuman or Manpanzee)

Hahahaha

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

Jarudy's picture
Jarudy
Offline
Joined: 2/5/11

guywhofishes Said:
Apology accepted. Yeah, intelligent design area, way way too much mind-blowing amounts of stored data/instructions are needed in even the simplest living entity for it to have auto-assembled. IMO. Pure physics call for things to disperse and dissociate into chaos. Life pulls things from choas into order... that's "retarded" in a natural sense. What possible rational is there for MBs of data/instructions to fall into place to allow the very first simple cell to operate... Let alone split into two and replicate! What the heck? How could that "just happen by chance". The complexity of even the simplest cell is just too dang mind-blowing. I just can't accept it just formed itself into a functioning system with the complexity rivalong a major metro/city.

First bolded section: Are you really using entropy as your reasoning for life not to form?
Second bolded section: A cell doesnt evolve as a whole from scratch as you should well know. Abiogenesis is proposed to occur over the time of 1 billion years. As a person with experience in physics, you should grasp the immensity of 1 billion years.

Has life been made in the lab? Not to my knowledge. Have most precursors to life been made in the hypothesized conditions similar to early earth? Yes. Give those molecules one billion years of time and then look at the data.

As for evolution: Find a peer reviewed published article disproving or providing an alternative mechanism for the currently observed and well established process of evolution.

Jarudy's picture
Jarudy
Offline
Joined: 2/5/11

johnr Said:
If I evolved from a monkey, then why do we still have monkeys?
Some of us where lucky enough to evolve and other monkeys just didnt?
How about now, can a monkey mate with a human?

Humans didn't evolve FROM monkeys, we "diverged" over a long period of time. Check the ignorance at the front door, please.

bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

No one ever said man descended from the monkey.  Scientists say that BOTH man and the Monkey descended from  common stock way way back.  The nonsesne of man desending through the present day monkey is one of those silly things that you hear parotted on and on by people who son't take the time to look at stuff seriously.

Along this same line and back to the original topic, there is a one or two hour documentary that you can cget on Netflix that is interesting.  It was produced by a guy called Van Danikan, a swiss guy, - look under his name in the Search section of netflix.  Its only available on DVD, not streaming.  
Though I'm not a believer in the beings from outer spaqce theory, after seeing this documentary a couple of times I have to admit that objectively this makes much more sense with BOTH the humankind evolution theory AND the foundation of the early religious growth all over the world that began at around the same time, well before the birth of Christ..
.It  includes some of the basis of religion in it too, and several religious scholars are interviewed - even the Vatican has a sort of think tank about this theory.
But well worth watching, IMHO!  Food for thought, though like the creation theory and all of the evolution theory, nothing final on it will ever be proven to everyone's satisfaction..

FrankTheTank300's picture
FrankTheTank300
Offline
Joined: 5/18/10

Jesus even loves you idiots!!!

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

Jarudy, you are cherry-picking. I said life OR life-form components such as protiens, etc... From pre-life Earth available ingredients. In other words, from the pre-life oceans, broth, or whatever.

Science hasn't pulled it off. And you athiests always answer with... "but it's a billion years, don't you realize how long a billion years is?" as if, leaving things laying in conjuction with each other for really really really long time spans magically allows almost anything to happen. Why don't the basic ingredients form into a rifle or fishing rod then? Much simpler objects than even simplest cell... And it's a BILLION YEARS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! don't you realize how long that is?? Ha ha ha ha...

 

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

Jarudy, please post link to peer-reviewed journal article where precursors were formed. Thanks.

 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

guy... i think you are missing the idea of what exactly would be considered a precursor to "life" as we currently know it.  the precursors could've been any chemical combination capable of reproduction.  not reproduction like we think if it today.  but, more along the lines of a very simple self replicating  organic molecule.  something like a self replicating nucleic acid for example.  not strands of dna... just a simple acid w/ the mechanism for replicating itself.  once that point is reached... all bets are off, evolution starts to occur and anything can happen.  and to grasp how that point could've been reached, you really do have to wrap your mind around the concept of a billion years.  that isn't meant to be condescending.   

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

MathewsZman's picture
MathewsZman
Offline
Joined: 8/2/10

And now for a light hearted matinee break:

I don't drink alcohol, I drink distilled spirits; so I am not an alcoholic... I am spiritual
Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the 
Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian!" .

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

guywhofishes Said:
Jarudy, please post link to peer-reviewed journal article where precursors were formed. Thanks.

Guy, watch that video I posted on the previous page, just 10 minutes long....

Capt Ahab's picture
Capt Ahab
Offline
Joined: 6/14/11

Thanks for posting that video. it was worth the 10 minutes.

multi-species-angler Said:

guywhofishes Said:
Jarudy, please post link to peer-reviewed journal article where precursors were formed. Thanks.

Guy, watch that video I posted on the previous page, just 10 minutes long....

I have a bad feeling that whenever a lesbian looks at me they think “That’s why I’m not a heterosexual”. -George Costanza

I was in the pool! I was in the pool! You don’t understand! There was shrinkage!   -George Costanza

You know if you take everything I’ve ever done in my entire life and condense it down into one day, it looks decent. -George Costanza

Don’t insult me, my friend. Remember who you’re talking to. No one’s a bigger idiot than me. -George Costanza

Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: 12/14/10

 I think im now more confused than ever on where i stand with "how life began". I think Guy and Multi both have valid and interesting points that could be argued for years. That 10 min. video was interesting and i tend to lean towards science. I shake my head at the adam and eve theory. However Guy's stance on the miracle of life is a valid one in that the science involved to create life is so great that it could only be an act of god. Does that sound about right? I dont wanna put words in peoples mouths. I find this very interesting. No reason to hurt anyones feelings or get worked up we're all fishing buddies here!

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Jarudy Said:

johnr Said:
If I evolved from a monkey, then why do we still have monkeys?
Some of us where lucky enough to evolve and other monkeys just didnt?
How about now, can a monkey mate with a human?

Humans didn't evolve FROM monkeys, we "diverged" over a long period of time. Check the ignorance at the front door, please.

Says you. Because your theology says so. You might want to follow your own advice.

Neat

Jarudy's picture
Jarudy
Offline
Joined: 2/5/11
Main Entry: the·ol·o·gy 

Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-lə-jē\

Function: noun

1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially :the study of God and of God's relation to the world

And since ignorants think science is "religious"

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious 

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\

Function: adjective

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

 

I have no devotion to an "ultimate reality or deity". I look at observable facts and use logic.  What makes your religion better than any other one? Nothing, hardly any religions are based on fact, just on faith. No logical person can claim know "reality" or pretend to, which is why any religion or faith or the sloppy big bang theory is frankly ignorant. I never said or made claims about you or others being stupid. Look at repeatable, credible sources for your "beliefs", not a second hand account bible, koran, story, etc. Men wrote the bible, Koran and the big bang theory. None listed are correct in terms provable fact. So keep fighting for your mutual imaginary friend(s) while I take peace knowing when I die I die; I wont be stuck in the prison known as heaven or hell. "The only thing better than eternal paradise is eternal rest." -Hannibal

 
guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

right, I'm an analytical chemist by training. I understand what you're saying.

It is my understanding that they've yet to come up with any self-replicating simple bits/pieces yet. maybe I'm wrong. that's why I'm asking for papers.

I have a problem with the loose way the "billion years" gets thrown around like it's solid fact. I'm not in the 5,000 year bible camp, but the evolution guys throw the billion year stuff around like it's a lock. Done deal, no room for debate. Who amongst you even knows how science has arrived at that theory and tried to replicate the experiments/theories for yourselves?

Multi even made the claim he can go out and "prove that to himself" somehow.

multi says...
"when someone tells you the earth is 4.5 billion years old, you can go see for your self in many ways"
Love to know how he would do that. Walk out to some geologic formation he's been told is 4.5 billion years old, pick out a rock, and say "yep, looks like 4.5 billion years old with my own eyes - proof enough for me".

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Early_conditions

The Nobel Prize winning chemist, Christian de Duve, argues that the determination of chemistry means that "life has to emerge quickly... Chemical reactions happen quickly or not at all; if any reaction takes a millennium to complete then the chances are all the reagents will simply dissipate or breakdown in the meantime, unless they are replenished by other faster reactions".
I agree with Duve... needing millions or billions of years to get things going seems implausible in chemical reaction terms.

Notice that the wiki article - which doesn't appear to show bias either way is loaded with "thought to have", "reasoned to be possible", "thought possible", yadda, yadda. No definitive proof either way, but some of the athiests here talk like it's a  lock. That's the thing I argue against - the bold confidence (faith?) they have in theories that have yet to be proven (maybe never will be) through experiment.

I'm done here kids. It's been fun. I think the horse was dead 4 pages ago. Sorry to bore most of you.

espringers Said:
guy... i think you are missing the idea of what exactly would be considered a precursor to "life" as we currently know it.  the precursors could've been any chemical combination capable of reproduction.  not reproduction like we think if it today.  but, more along the lines of a very simple self replicating  organic molecule.  something like a self replicating nucleic acid for example.  not strands of dna... just a simple acid w/ the mechanism for replicating itself.  once that point is reached... all bets are off, evolution starts to occur and anything can happen.  and to grasp how that point could've been reached, you really do have to wrap your mind around the concept of a billion years.  that isn't meant to be condescending.   

 

Jarudy's picture
Jarudy
Offline
Joined: 2/5/11

 Look into Miller-Urey and following experiments and analysis. Google scholar, "abiogenisis of amino acids" and read.

guywhofishes Said:
Jarudy, please post link to peer-reviewed journal article where precursors were formed. Thanks.
espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Thump, thump, thump, goes me beating the horse... Anyway... The age of the earth, certain rock formations, etc. is, in fact, scientifically provable. And the reference to the amount of time a billion years is was in response to the contention that the right combination could never have happened by chance. The response was... Over a period of a billion years, it certainly is not implausible and becomes more and more likely the longer the time period is. Duve's logic is simply flawed if its purpose is to argue against the idea that the perfect combination could've come together by chance over time.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Jarudy Said:

Main Entry: the·ol·o·gy 

Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-lə-jē\

Function: noun

1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially :the study of God and of God's relation to the world

And since ignorants think science is "religious"

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious 

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\

Function: adjective

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

 

I have no devotion to an "ultimate reality or deity". I look at observable facts and use logic.  What makes your religion better than any other one? Nothing, hardly any religions are based on fact, just on faith. No logical person can claim know "reality" or pretend to, which is why any religion or faith or the sloppy big bang theory is frankly ignorant. I never said or made claims about you or others being stupid. Look at repeatable, credible sources for your "beliefs", not a second hand account bible, koran, story, etc. Men wrote the bible, Koran and the big bang theory. None listed are correct in terms provable fact. So keep fighting for your mutual imaginary friend(s) while I take peace knowing when I die I die; I wont be stuck in the prison known as heaven or hell. "The only thing better than eternal paradise is eternal rest." -Hannibal

 

So you are saying people with a strong faith that beleive in something more than a test tube and a petrie dish are " frankly ignorant"?

The arrogance of self believed itellect.

You aren;t fishmhan under a different name are you?

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

So guywhofishes believes in a sort of hybrid concept on how we got here? Iinteresting. And gst, you believe in god but you aren't Christian?

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

"Americans are by all measures a deeply religious people, but they are also deeply ignorant about religion."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html
 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

Bill Maher: See, this is my problem, I'm trying - I mean, you're - you're a Senator. You are one of the very few people who are really running this country. It worries me that people are running my country who think - who believe in a talking snake. Um...
Mark Pryor: [Arkansas' Democratic Senator] You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate, though.
[chuckles]

 

zogman's picture
zogman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/23/02

Lets see Bill Maher .................  Nope I'll use Sheldon Cooper as my expert.  LOL

"If God didn't want us to hunt, He wouldn't have given us plaid shirts; I only kill in self defense—what would you do if a rabbit pulled a knife on you?"

Floyd R. Turbo

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
It worries me that people are running my country who think - who believe in a talking snake. Um...

I can see the humor in that, but I can't decide if Maher is deceptive or not very smart.  Let me explain just this little bit:  Snake, serpent, etc  One gets messed up going from ancient Juda to Hebrew, to Greek, to a Catholic interpretation.  Many people talk of the devil or Satan.  The original word I will spell wrong I know, but it sounded like Sutun.  This is the word some call serpent.  Modern man says snake.  All are wrong because ancient Hebrew Sutun means deceiver.  Knowing these things throws a little different perspective on things.  I don't want Maher running the country. 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

GUYWHOFISHES SAID:

I have a problem with the loose way the "billion years" gets thrown around like it's solid fact. I'm not in the 5,000 year bible camp, but the evolution guys throw the billion year stuff around like it's a lock. Done deal, no room for debate. Who amongst you even knows how science has arrived at that theory and tried to replicate the experiments/theories for yourselves?

Multi even made the claim he can go out and "prove that to himself" somehow.

multi says...
"when someone tells you the earth is 4.5 billion years old, you can go see for your self in many ways"
Love to know how he would do that. Walk out to some geologic formation he's been told is 4.5 billion years old, pick out a rock, and say "yep, looks like 4.5 billion years old with my own eyes - proof enough for me".

Um? ok well...I thought you were like a chemist or something? but I'll explain a few ways to date the earth, and if thats not enough, I'll explain a few more, but sooner or later you'll have to either get it, or go check for yourself, because I can't type all day & night.

Ok radiometric dating is one way (amongst others), but the earth is always recycling itself through plate techtonics so it's hard to know which parts of the earth have stayed exposed at the surface since it was formed, and not been inundated back below the crust & melted down for "recycling". once we found those places (western australia is a good spot) the rocks & minerals there date to approx 4.5 billion years old, coincidentally the moon rocks brought back in the late 60s also dated to 4.5 billion yeards old, and scientists also thought it to be strange that under various dating techniques even meteorites from within our solar system dated to?....you guessed it, 4.5 billion years old.

Now lets say you don't believe in radiocarbon dating, radiometric hooplah, magnetostratigraphy, or any of those other methods geologists commonly use.  lets take an element found on earth with a "half life" (google half life, I'm not typing all night)  hows about uranium.  Uranium is an element that can only be created by fusion under the rediculous heat and pressure of a supernova (which is what the scientific community generally believes kicked off the forming of our solar system) there are 3 isotopes in uranium that decay, each one at a different rate.  uranium238 decays by half every 4.46 billion years, uranium235 decays by half every 704 million years and uranium234 at every 245,000 years and when uranium decays it turns into every outdoorsmans favorite element...lead.  now you take some uranium and measure the amount of decay and the uranium dates back just over 4.5 billion years. (time difference is because uranium formed in a supernova just before gravity re-coalesced the debris into our solar system)

then of course (not quite so cut & dry) we have carbon dating of various fossilized lifeforms layered throughout the earths crust that add up to the timeline of 4.5 billion years.

or you can read the bible and add the ages of all the kings and come to conclude the earth is 6,000 years old (as stated in the book of genesis) but I think we're well beyond that method.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
So guywhofishes believes in a sort of hybrid concept on how we got here? Iinteresting. And gst, you believe in god but you aren't Christian?

I didn;t know that I wasn;t?

Perhaps I may not fall into your defined catagories, but my faith has a religious base. As I said earier, I am not a particularily religious person for some of the reasons some have mentioned on here directed at religion itself, ( I some times beleive man has put to much of THEIR influences in religion and forgot that it is truly about faith rather than perpetuating the religion(, but that does not mean I beleive any religion can not be a base for ones faith if they choose. The religion that happens to be the base of my faith is indeed one of Chritianity. 

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

 I am not trying to start a fight, but I find it funny how science can claim to"date" things using radioactive decay and so on, yet when asked how life began they say well ummm maybe it just happened randomly over a billion years. Did anyone ever consider that some of these dating methods may be flawed. Maybe there are other forces at work tat can change the outcome, such as extreme radiation, gravitational changes, dark matter, antimatter or a plethora of other influences we have yet to discover?

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

Sum1's picture
Sum1
Offline
Joined: 1/12/08

multi-species-angler Said:

I have read and or watched several pieces that have proved much of what is written the Bible to be true. The New Testament is a book more people should read and model their lives after, if more did so this world would be alot better place. To each their own.


From the bible...
13
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

I think you're right, the world would be a much better place if more of us practiced things from a fictional 2000 year old "handbook".  Thats what I love about religion, you can hand pick the parts in these books you want to live by and pretend the rest doesn't apply to you or your own beliefs.  unfortunately in most cases of science I get busted if I try & make stuff up and gravity still won't bend to my needs.
 

Sorry but your quote from the Bible is not from the New Testament. This a big mistake people that are not familiar with the bible make, they quote scripture out of the Old Testament to use against  the Christian faith. There were no Christians in the Old Testament. Christianity is New Testament on.

If this has already been brought up, sorry, wasn't about to read through 8 pages to find out.

 "Play it Mr.Toot"

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

buckmaster81 Said:
 I am not trying to start a fight, but I find it funny how science can claim to"date" things using radioactive decay and so on, yet when asked how life began they say well ummm maybe it just happened randomly over a billion years. Did anyone ever consider that some of these dating methods may be flawed. Maybe there are other forces at work tat can change the outcome, such as extreme radiation, gravitational changes, dark matter, antimatter or a plethora of other influences we have yet to discover?

agree, "some" of these dating methods may be flawed...but all of them? its not like a few of the methods say 4.5 billion years and the rest throw out random numbers, they all come to 4.5 billion years. 

An exact answer to exactly how and when (to the day) life began is not yet known, proven, and accepted by the general population of scientists around the world, it doesn't mean we get to use imaginary friends and play make believe until it is "proven" by 7 billion people's standards.

there will always be that guy with the 2nd shooter theories, the ancient alien theories, and the "we never landed on the moon" theories and many people will choose to believe those.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
there will always be that guy with the 2nd shooter theories, the ancient alien theories, and the "we never landed on the moon" theories

And we know the age of the earth theory????    Not trying to make fun of you.  I was just wondering if you noticed how easily that would fit in also.

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

This popped into my head pages ago but now I just couldnt help it, time for another comedy matinee anyway.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Plainsman Said:

It worries me that people are running my country who think - who believe in a talking snake. Um...

I can see the humor in that, but I can't decide if Maher is deceptive or not very smart.  Let me explain just this little bit:  Snake, serpent, etc  One gets messed up going from ancient Juda to Hebrew, to Greek, to a Catholic interpretation.  Many people talk of the devil or Satan.  The original word I will spell wrong I know, but it sounded like Sutun.  This is the word some call serpent.  Modern man says snake.  All are wrong because ancient Hebrew Sutun means deceiver.  Knowing these things throws a little different perspective on things.  I don't want Maher running the country. 

I think he brings up the snake, because a lot of Christians actually believe in a talking snake. Kind of like 60% of Americans literally belive the Noah's Ark story is true.

Pages