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 However they fail to mention that he did an unpublished experiment which did recreated the conditions more acutely and produced even more amino acids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.
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.
