Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Outrider]

Yep, pretty much if I understood it correctly. And not all scientists are like that. It's just that Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are very passionate about the public's understanding of science... so they'll speak unkindly of anything that doesn't agree with science.

[Yanoda]

If I had to guess, most of the video would be making sarcastic jokes at religion, and the other part being the actual reasoning, though it would be dragged out throughout the video.

I advise not making assumptions until you've seen the entire video. I would say only a maximum of 1% of the video is mentioned about religion. Do not forget that they also made fun of themselves (biologists mostly), though it is understandable since you only saw 5 minutes of the video.

Concerning the video, Outrider did a good simple summary of the video.

I would also like to add:
- that the video also demonstrates how the scientific consensus evolves as more evidence/data is collected
- how the understanding of the Universe we know so far has evolved within several centuries
- several points of evidence we collected on the current state of the Universe we know today

I recommend watching the video, it was very interesting and they explained quite well for many to understand.

Another interesting video


Cheers

Yanoda

[Yanoda]

Yay another Necro!

Eitherway, I just recently found an interesting Science Report on the Evolution of Plants that was released today.

Title: Insect Herbivores Drive Real-Time Ecological and Evolutionary Change in Plant Populations

Abstract:
Insect herbivores are hypothesized to be major factors affecting the ecology and evolution of plants. We tested this prediction by suppressing insects in replicated field populations of a native plant, Oenothera biennis, which reduced seed predation, altered interspecific competitive dynamics, and resulted in rapid evolutionary divergence. Comparative genotyping and phenotyping of nearly 12,000 O. biennis individuals revealed that in plots protected from insects, resistance to herbivores declined through time owing to changes in flowering time and lower defensive ellagitannins in fruits, whereas plant competitive ability increased. This independent real-time evolution of plant resistance and competitive ability in the field resulted from the relaxation of direct selective effects of insects on plant defense and through indirect effects due to reduced herbivory on plant competitors.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6103/113.abstract

I'll try to get a hand on the actual report, but unfortunately it is only available to premium members of the Magazine for the moment.

Cheers

Yanoda

[[m'kay]]

Every time I see this topic come back up on the New Posts lists, I have to restrain the urge to make a five paragraph long post consisting of "whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy". Let it die already. All the debating ground around here has been well-tread, any new information will be argued in the same exact fashion as before without any actual new ideas being brought to the table, and for the love of god it has been ninety three pages. It's time to let this topic die, man.

[The Master]

Neeeeeeeevvvvvvvveeeeeerrrrr

lets get this thing to 100!!!
have a reunion of all the main contributors for on last battle
dont let it die

Lol I guess some people are unhappy with the thread. Lets just troll it then to 100.

BTW trying to get to 100 is not trivializing anything

[Yanoda]

I'd actually like to see M'kay write a five paragraph post. Sure could use some lulz.

Have another handy video that sums up many of the previous arguments, ENJOY!


Cheers

Yanoda

[Hobo]

You just won't let this die, will you? Unfortunately I don't disagree with this, sorry. :( Of course I could always dig up an arguement that was made here like 50 pages ago, but idk if I should since it takes a lot away from school and my social life..

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

First off, i didn't read for about 50 pages, just because i see the same old same old debate going on.
This is what i believe to be something else.

Now the bible states that got created heaven and earth.
About animals god said in genesis "And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so"

Now the bible doesn't state that all the animals there are here today would have been there in those times.
Technically the bible doesn't negate that animals acording to evolution evolve.
The bible said God create heaven and earth, never was implied how, acording to the evolution theory the big bang created it all, but it can't be prooven how it occured.
Evolution theory states that cells started building on Earth, while there are scientists who claim the odds of that happening are close to none.
The bible states god made it happen, it never implies that it wasn't this, what who said god couldn't have been the one who made the cells structure.

The Bible just states that God created heaven and earth, alongsides the animals and the humans.
The only thing i see where there is an issue is that the evo theory states man evolved from apes, where the bible says it otherwise.


So i'm now wondering, what is more believable?
That the big bang(if it happened) was a random thing
That the earth was randomly placed where it is, just in the right position in our solar system, with the exact dimensions, and gravity.
With the exact oxigen on it, enough to keep us alive, but not too much to burn our longs.
That somehow by change simple cells appear, that those somehow got into complex cells, and that those somehow created life, and that life went on and on and that created us by random chance.

OR is it more believable that a deity caused the creation of it all, regardless how since it isn't mencioned in the bible?

Now start dumping videos and [poo], if you keep it simple i might check it out.
But i'm not about to lose gaming time on this again, and the only reason i've written the above is because i'm in school and bored and i'd like to get 100 pages and

MT

[Yanoda]

First off, i didn't read for about 50 pages, just because i see the same old same old debate going on.
This is what i believe to be something else.

Now the bible states that got created heaven and earth.
About animals god said in genesis "And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so"

Ok

Now the bible doesn't state that all the animals there are here today would have been there in those times.
Technically the bible doesn't negate that animals acording to evolution evolve.
The bible said God create heaven and earth, never was implied how, acording to the evolution theory the big bang created it all, but it can't be prooven how it occured.

Stop right there! Evolution never states the Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) or the Creation of the Universe. This is also explicitly stated in the previous video. Do not make false assumptions. Evolution just explains how life developed over the past several billion years, nothing more, nothing less. So stop equating Evolution as Abiogenesis or Creation of the Universe, they are unrelated.

Evolution theory states that cells started building on Earth, while there are scientists who claim the odds of that happening are close to none.
The bible states god made it happen, it never implies that it wasn't this, what who said god couldn't have been the one who made the cells structure.

Evolution never states the creation of cells, that is Abiogenesis, it is not related to Evolution. I can counter argue that many scientists claim that the chances are fairly decent with enough time included for Abiogenesis to occur. Please explain the process how God created the cells, the Bible doesn't explain that.

The Bible just states that God created heaven and earth, alongsides the animals and the humans.
The only thing i see where there is an issue is that the evo theory states man evolved from apes, where the bible says it otherwise.

This is where both sides disagree, that is correct.

So i'm now wondering, what is more believable?
That the big bang(if it happened) was a random thing
That the earth was randomly placed where it is, just in the right position in our solar system, with the exact dimensions, and gravity.
With the exact oxigen on it, enough to keep us alive, but not too much to burn our longs.
That somehow by change simple cells appear, that those somehow got into complex cells, and that those somehow created life, and that life went on and on and that created us by random chance.

OR is it more believable that a deity caused the creation of it all, regardless how since it isn't mencioned in the bible?

Now start dumping videos and [poo], if you keep it simple i might check it out.
But i'm not about to lose gaming time on this again, and the only reason i've written the above is because i'm in school and bored and i'd like to get 100 pages and

MT

The previous video was simple and relatively short that addressed several of your points, though you refuse to look at it unfortunately.
What is more believable is irrelevant, what is more factual is the proper/right way to go. As it turns out, there is more evidence/data/observations on the scientific aspect of the origin of the Universe, origin of Life (Abiogenesis) and how life developed (Evolution) than the claim of a deity that created everything.
The 'Big Bang' is the most viable explanation of how the Universe started, many evidences were mentioned in the previous posts that support the Scientific Theory (not to be confused with the conventional meaning of theory).
The Earth was not randomly placed per se. The Earth developed over billions of years in the infancy of the Solar System. The right conditions enabled life to develop. If it didn't have the conditions, life wouldn't have developed, not as random as one assumes.
Dimensions? What do you mean by that? Size? Size is not exactly relevant and life can still work and prosper in varying intensities of Gravity.
In Earth's early development, Oxygen gas was not present. Oxygen is very reactive and reacts with other elements/compounds fairly quickly (rust for example). It took photosynthetic life to create Oxygen gas to create the oxygen rich atmosphere we have today. Also, Oxygen levels also varied in Earth's History. Many Organisms developed ways to live without oxygen. Due to Oxygen's reactive properties, Oxygen will likely react with other elements and compounds, reducing the concentration before it can be a threat to our health.
Please review the Subject of Abiogenesis for the formation of organisms, as well as review the subject of Evolution to understand the process on how life developed over time to more complex organisms. The process of Evolution is not entirely about chance, read about it (or watch the video) and you'll understand.

Sorry, but a book that states something happened without explaining how, can't be believable anymore than your claim of random chance. I could open another book where it states Leprechauns exist and using the same argument as you with the Bible, it would be considered true.
So I recommend revising your argument.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Mandalore]

What I would be really interested in is a quantum like theory in regards to evolution.