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!

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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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