@Imirror1 Type in "Ben Stein vs Richard Dawkins interview" in the search box here at YouTube. You will see that even Richard Dawkins DOES NOT KNOW THE ANSWERS to the BIG QUESTIONS!!! How did the universe begin and how did life begin on earth??? Dawkins is knocked out of the park by Stein who clearly shows Dawkins DO NOT KNOW!! Dawkins is ignorant about these important questions. AND NOW GET THIS! Dawkins turns to
Fred Hoyle's panspermina theory to try and save face. Hoyle is going to be RIGHT!
@boblackey1 The scientist says proudly;We don't know.The bibletards says God did it and,i say;God made you stupid to be debunkt on youtube.Thanks god for the youtube
@Imirror1 Richard Dawkins says he doesn't know HOW the universe began and he doesn't know HOW life began but he says he is an atheist!! People who believe in God have NOT been debunked on YouTube or anywhere! Name just ONE person who has debunked a man who believes in God! Just one! There are NO people who have done that or can do that. The believer in God clearly operates on faith plus his spin on the scientific facts. See Huge Ross, Phd webiste "Reasons to Believe" for an example.
@Callirgos1 Well go to the Hugh Ross website "Reasons to Believe" This Phd astronomer and his team of scientists have dozens of scientific reasons that to them proves God exists. I'm sure you can find a few that will impress even you. Athiesm is a dead end. It can not answer the big questions such as "how did the universe come about?", "how did life begin?", "If the big bang really happen, what caused it?" "If all matter, energy, time and space began to exist at big bang, what was before that"?
@Callirgos1 Well then you can't believe Stephen Hawking's claim that the universe created ITSELF OUT OF NOTHING and when it first popped into existence out of nothing, it was smaller than an atom and ALl energy, matter, time and space (no place outside of it for you to be located) was in this little universe which then BIG BANGED or inflated into what we have today which is so big that we can't understand how big it is. And God didn't do this miracle, it created itself. What magic!!
@boblackey1 Atheism itself doesn't answer these questions, it's just a description of non-belief regarding religious claims.
You asked what was BEFORE the big bang? In terms of the theory, there was no before, because time began at THAT point. Just like there is no temperature below zero Kelvin.
I can't be certain that God doesn't exist, but science is not in the certainty business. However it has already answered a LOT of big questions and is working on the rest.
@boblackey1 Atheism is not meant to answer these questions, atheism is just the disbelief in any gods. science can answer these questions and i am sure if humans survive long enough i am sure it will. What can not answer these questions is religion, making stuff up so that you have an answer(wrong or not) dose not get you any closer to the truth. Saying IDK but this is what we do know as fact, that dose get us closer to the true answers, wild guesses and assumptions not so much.
Hoyle got religion he stated "one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of... ” "
he also beleived that viruses (much more complext than simple amines) travelled through space and drove evolution !!
That makes him crazy. he was a mathmatician/physicist and not a biologist or palaeontologist he should've stuck to his field.
@bakersteven3 One of Hoyle's Phd students, at Cambirdge University where Hoyle was chairman (boss) of the department of physics and astronomy, Chandra Wickramasinghe, who later was awarded the highest degree at Cambridge, the ScD, agrees with everything Hoyle held on life from space. Indeed Wickramasinghe came up with some of those ideas himself. Today he is considered a world authority on "interseller matter" and holds that the dust in space is actually life in the form of dried bacteria!!!
@bakersteven3 So if Fred Hoyle was CRAZY, then so was Wickramasinghe. Chandra Wickramasinghe holds two doctor of science degrees. A Phd and the more impressive ScD. Wickramasinghe is a strong supporter that life did NOT begin on earth but in outer space and his website, scientific papers, books and experiments for the last 40 years keep gathering evidence that clearly points to panspermia as what happened. Life didn't begin here on earth! It is older than earth and came from outerspace!!
@bakersteven3 Type "Ben Stein vs Richard Dawkins interview" in the YouTube search box!! Stein, as it is so easy to do with an evolutionists, a scientist, knocks Dawkins out of the box with question after question about how did the universe begin, who or what started the universe, how did life being etc. Dawkins clearly looks embarrassed as he continually says "I don't know" and "nobody knows". Now the kicker! Dawkins turns to Fred Hoyle's panspermia theory and high intelligence to save face. Ha!
No don't get me wrong. I was raised in a Christian home and have many wondeful Christian relatives but they don't have an answer either!!! They base their belief on what the Bible teaches and faith. Faith that God exists, the Jesus died for their sins and freely gives them eternal life and faith that the Bible is the Word of God. When I was a teenager and was taught evolution in high school I became an agnostic. Didn't want to but did. But to this day, nobody can answer the BIG questions for me!
Hoyle (when it comes to Evolution) is a bit of a crack pot. He thinks the Archeopteryx is a fake !! he also tohught up "Steady State theory", which is not correct either, so clever yes, genius NO.
@bakersteven3 Well more and more scientists are now agreeing with Hoyle that life probably did come from outerspace. Most not in agreement with Hoyle that life itself came from space and is older than the earth, but the building blocks of life did indeed come from outerspace via comets and rocks. Even the oceans, one water drop at a time, came from outerspace. So Hoyle's modern panspermia position is gaining more and more support.
@boblackey1 "Well more and more scientists are now agreeing with Hoyle that life probably did come from outerspace.", this theory has no evidence and is impossible to prove. As i've said it's a theory, but have we found any organics on any meteorites/comets? None that I know off, so no proof no cookie.
"Even the oceans, one water drop at a time, came from outerspace.", well yes and no, ALL elements are made in stars, so they all comes from space...but I doubt they "rained" down..
@bakersteven3 One reason Hoyle hated the Big Bang is it played right into the Roman Catholic Churches hands. And the first scientist to present it was also a Roman Catholic priest. The Big Bang: All energy, matter, time and space as we know it, came into existences at the big bang! Before the big bang, no energy to created you and me. No matter for us to be made with. No time for us AND NO SPACE INTO WHICH TO PUT US. NO place for us to be LOCATED!!!
@bakersteven3 Also Fred Hoyle WAS a genius. No just clever. He could navigate via the stars at age 10. By age 12 was doing math that usually was found at the university level etc. Actually the guy on this video is full of shit too. He has NO idea HOW life started here on earth. Hoyle may end up right that life came from outerspace. No body has any idea how life began on earth. What was see in the lab is nowhere CLOSE to life. NOT CLOSE. Once Hoyle said maybe life never had a beginning. Could be.
@boblackey1 Hoyle genius is just yuor opinion. he somewhat loses credibility when he claims that Archeaoptyrx was a fake !! I've no problems with the idea of amino acids from space, no proof and probably never be able to, but his dabbling in Evolution made him look foolish. You're not correct that "!No body has any idea how life began on earth." we have plenty, and the primaeval soup is the best. As for yuo rpoint aobut the lab, it's difficult to repeat this in an experiment.
@bakersteven3 You are NOT up to date!! You need new books and data. It's been six months or more since I watched the presentation in the US on the science channel where the scientists SHOWED the amino acids AND the water drops that were encased in the space rocks they examined. I AM correct. NOBODY knows how life began and IF it was here on earth or came from outerspace. The outerspace model is fast becoming the best and will win in the end. If anyone knew how life began, we would all know it!!
@boblackey1 OK, it's on TV so it must be true, please point me towards a peer reviewed paper and I'll investigate. Thanks. Your dedication towards the "Out of space theory" is almost religious.
@bakersteven3 If ANYONE could explain how life began here on this planet, it would be front page headlines on the New York Times. The cover story on Time magazine. The lead story of NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. You are being silly! Chandra Wickramasinghe, Phd (under Hoyle at Cambridge) and holder of the highest degree offered at Cambridge, the ScD had reported his findings on the SCARS coronavirus and it had to have come from outerspace! Mike Baillie, Phd of Queens U. agrees!
@boblackey1 With respect I get my science from Nature, Science and other peer reviewed journals rather than TV programmes. No one has explained why Hoyle was anti evolution, why he actually attacked a fossil and tried to break it (Archeoptryx) !! As I pooint out Steady State theory has been debunked, so all he has left is the out fo space theory and all you can give me is the same guy who co-wrote the theory !! Sorry, not convinced.
@bakersteven3 There is not a fucking thing wrong with watching a TV program on the Science channel WITH scientists and they are allowing scientists present the evidence at hand and not only do you get to HEAR what the scientist has to say but you get to SEE the evidence. I continue to INSIST that YOU or anyone can explain how life arose on this planet. Sir Frances Crick, Phd admitted in a book that I have in my library that the GULF between non-life and life is so wide it is almost a miracle.
@boblackey1 "There is not a fucking thing wrong with watching a TV program on the Science channel WITH scientists ...", indeed nothing wrong but it's not science as such it's a TB programme edited in a certain way by a director. Can I assume you ar eunable to point towards any scienctific papers then ? That's all I ask. IF there's overwealming evidences (a spreviously claimed) then there should be plenty of papers by Hyle/Chandr. Crick was when ?? (even further out fo date than me !!)
@bakersteven3 Fred Hoyle was one of the great scientists of the 20th century. Hoyle won many prizes and as this guy here points out, Hoyle's original idea on how carbon and heavy elements are created in stars won a Nobel Prize. All of the work to prove the heavy elements formed in stars and not in the big bang was done by Hoyle and his Steady State guys. Of course they were trying to debunk the big bang so they had to find a place the heavy elements were made OTHER than in the big bang itself!
@bakersteven3 And it was Hoyle who told the Big Bang guys that IF the big bang is correct, then there must be something leftover from something so powerful such as an echo coming from every place in the universe and it just isn't there. But in 1964 two Bell lab boys found it ACCIDENTALLY and won a Nobel Prize 13 years later. As to Hoyle's co-author who earned his Phd under Hoyle at Cambridge, Dr. Wickramasinghe is considered an international EXPERT on interstellar matter. Don't know him do you?
@boblackey1 Nucleosynthesis was theories well before Hoyle and others (re:B2FH paper), in the 1920's. NB Hoyle was the least author of this paper. Anyway, this hero worship doesn't explain his antipathy for evolution ?
And why he attacked fossils ? does it!!
So, please tell me why he thought (with no good reason) that Archeoptyrx was faked ???
@boblackey1 I've nothign against Hoyle, he was good but he also theoriesed so many ideas that occassionally some where correct. Like throwing a a dartbaord blindfolded, you will eventually got tripe 20 !!).
Alot of the things you are claiming seem to have been done by other people, CMB for a start, was theoriesed by Gamow in 1948 in a Nature article, of course this killed of the Steady State theory as well.
Like most scientist "standing on the shoulders of giants"
@bakersteven3 The Steady State theory continued to have support from many scientists and was a close runner up to the Big Bang until the early 60's when two guys at Bell Lab in New Jersey couldn't understand why this noise was coming from sky in every direction when they were trying to hook up a microwave system near New York City. Later it was determined this noise is the background radiation left over from the moment of creation 14 billion years ago. It earned them the Nobel prize.
@bakersteven3 George Camow did NOT originate the Big Bang theory. He worked to refine it in Nature in 1948 but the original idea came from Monsigner George Lemaitre (1894-1966), a devout Christian and pirest who also taught astronomery and physics at Catholic University of Luvain. Lemaitre first presented his paper to Albert Einstein who rejected it and said his physics was poor. Later in the 1920's, observations by Edwin Hubble provided support&Lemaitre met again with Einstein who now agreed.
@bakersteven3 The junkyard Boeing 747 thing wasn't to be taken seriously as this guy on this video does. Hoyle knew all the parts of a Boeing 747 wouldn't be in a particular junkyard. He was showing how utterly unlikely it is for something ALIVE to emerge on the earth. With the B2FH paper, Hoyle's part was CENTRAL to the paper. It was Hoyle who first had the idea and after the paper, it was turned over to Willy Fowler to prove it and later Fowler won the Nobel prize but Hoyle was left out.
@bakersteven3 After Dr. Fowler won the Nobel Prize, Fowler told the press that he was surprised that he alone won for this work and it was Fred Hoyle who came up with the original idea and worked on most of the details of the theory. Fowler did the work in the lab to PROVE it was right. As to evolution, it is NOT true that Hoyle or Wickramasinghe reject evolution. What they reject is Darwinism. Life came from outerspace, is older than the earth and material from space drives evolution.
@bakersteven3 Okay I just found info on the Archaeopteryx claims of forgery by Hoyle. According to what I just read on the internet, Fred Hoyle and his friend physicist Lee Spetner wrote a letter questioning if Archaeopteryx's feathers may be forged by Richard Owen to trap Charles Darwin. But the Brithish Museum of Naturea History compeltey rejected Hoyle and Spetner and wrote there was NO chance they could be right. Richard Owen (1802-1892) was a 19th century scientist who fought Darwin.
@boblackey1 Big problem with Hoyles theory, firstly only 10 have been found and these where found in Germany. The cospiracy theory doesn't include those found AFTER Darwin death !! The fossil was foudn AFTER publication of "Orgin of species" as well.
I'm yet to actual see any proof of the "life from outer space", i don't reject it but no organic material has been found in any meteroties, or comet, as far as I know.
Life is bound to be older than our planet, but where? and independant of us
@bakersteven3 I don't know anything about Owen but the research I did on this today on the net also said Hoyle and his writing partner, physicist Lee Spetner were not aware that a few other fossiles had been found. Until today I had missed Owen somehow but I now know that he fought Darwin hard and Hoyle and Spetner didn't like Darwin either. They thougth Darwin was all wrong about what drove evolution and I tend to think Hoyle may be right or half right and Darwin half wrong.
@bakersteven3 As to organic material from space, YOU MUST HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE LOOP and have never read anything by Wickramasinghe who is doing most of the work on that. Google his name. But there is many other places such as this from Space News dated Dec 5th 2006. "Nasa scientists have found ORGANIC MATERIAL that formed in the distant reaches of the solar system in a meteorite that fell in Canada in 2000" etc etc. I wouldn't laugh at Hoyle on this. Hoyle, in the end, is going to be right!!
@bakersteven3 I had never heard of Richard Owen but it says on the paper I just read that he didn't reject evolution but he strongly rejected Darwin's method of how evolution occurs which is EXACTLY what Hoyle did!! Also I was surprised this gentleman I had not heard of before coined the word "Dinosauria" which he said means "terrible lizzard or reptile" I also just read Fred Hoyle loved to pick fights with the orthodox position in science. I didn't know how often he did that. It was often!
@boblackey1 Richard Owen came up with the word "Dinosaur" and was the first director the the Natural History Museum in London. He was an ardent christian and lived around 120 years ago, things have moved on since then..for a start Archeoptyrx and genetics !! But he regularly claimed that the Archeoptyrx was FAKE, he even attacked one.
Using Owen is not really worthwhile, as he was an establishment character (hence the NHM gig!).
@bakersteven3 I think the analogy of how life began on this video here is also "shitty". There is NO evidence that the entire earth was ever covered with the material that would make something living and an electromagnetic breeze would be moving it around, stirring the brew, for 500 million years or 10 years. And why do two components that belong together naturally bond together. Who or what designed that? Did that just happen to fall out of the big bang accidentally?
@bakersteven3 Also I bought the book "Evolution From Space" in 1981 when it came out. It was written by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Phd, ScD. (Wickramasinghe did his Phd at Cambridge UNDER Hoyle) They caculated the odds of getting the most simple life form, something ALIVE!! at 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power. A number Hoyle said is greater that all the atoms in the universe. I'm rather sure this caculation had to do with getting the enzymes right to be ALIVE!!
@boblackey1 "They caculated the odds of getting the most simple life form, something ALIVE!! at 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power.", yes this is the usual number given by Intelligen Designers..it's mathematicalyl and probabiltiy obtuse and wrong. You only stand a 1 in 49 million chanc eof winnig the UK loterry but it still happens to someone ! It only has to happen once and it has.
@bakersteven3 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power is NOT wrong. It could be but you don't know that it is!!! Biologists Frank Salisbury: "Nobody has explained the origin of life on earth and even the "simplest" living cell is NOW KNOWN to be UNIMAGINABLY COMPLEX. As life has been found deeper and deeper in the fossil record and older strada, more scientists are now saying there isn't enough time. That life or it's building blocks must have come from outerspace."
@bakersteven3 There is now proof that the building blocks of life and virises come from outerspace. About six months ago they showed the amino acids inbedded in the space rock and water droplets too on the Science channel here in the states. Several scientists were involved and they also agreed that the oceans came from outerspace. I suggest you Google Chandra Wickramasinghe, Phd and look at his website and read his papers. You can also put his name in the search box on YouTube for some vids.
@bakersteven3 Also I invite you to go to wwwdotpanspermiadotorg At this website you can read tons of material about the evidence that has been gathered over the years that strongly indicates life came from outerspace. The NASA Stardust spacecraft is another experiment where dust was collected coming from a comet and Nasa said it turned out to be a tar like organic subtance!!! Life didn't originate here on earth. The data shows that is impossible just as Hoyle said in 1981. Life is cosmic!
@bakersteven3 But there is NO evidence the earth clearly is the place where life began! That is just a theory, guess work with NOTHING to back it up. The Miller/Urey experiements which produced amino acids in the lab is light years away from something living. Sir Frances Crick, Phd (Crick won the Nobel Prize with Watson for their work on DNA) said that gulf between NON living material and LIVING material is so wide that it seems almost an mircale. Hoyle's life from space gives more places & time
@bakersteven3 Dr. Wickramasinghe has informed me personally via mail that the evidence is hard and clear. Life did NOT originate here on earth but arrived from outerspace! He said he and Hoyle first rang that bell in 1981 in their book "Evolution From Space". Wickramasinghe is also convinced that the cosmic dust in deep space is bacteria and that many infections/sickness comes from space. A recent Newsweek cover story dug into the theory and it has much more support than you think.
I have read Fred Hoyle's book "The Black Cloud". It was fucking awesome! Read it, if you like science and especially cosmology. Verrrrry verry interesting. Has tastes of "The War of the Worlds" in it too....page turner
I agree with you Phil but he was just being critical i think. As you said he was an atheist but even scientists can be unbending in their ideas. Basic human nature, I dont want to be wrong
Thanks for the Hoyle quote in the info bar. I wonder why he became a deist? My only conjecture is that, as people grow older and death becomes more of an actuality, rather than a sort of vague shadow lurking on the edge of awareness, it's very tempting to look for refuge in the idea of an afterlife, no matter how tenuous that afterlife may be.
Al-Quran has 1400 years ago and Muslim Scientists has been declared "He (God) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness".
Al Quran sura Az Zumar;6
".....He (God) makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. . . ."
Have the Bible and scientists states "He (God ) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness"?
awesome sauce! >:D i wonder how creationists can lie to themselves about science all the time. why can't they just do what most christians do, and accept it alongside their faith? anyways, you're not arrogant! you're bright and you make a lot of sense, but i've never seen you act "arrogant." they're probably just pissed cuz you make a better arguement for atheism than they ever could for religion.
I have actually found an intelligent person on youtube! (Just kidding, I know there are intelligent people out there, but you definitely are one of them!) :)
@UNCRatDog Thanks for the subscription, but you might want to re-think that decision. After a look at your channel I see you are deeply religious. I am a pretty outspoken atheist and I try to argue against your beliefs, almost constantly. I do this because I think organised religion is a form of thought-control and disinformation about science (I KNOW you disagree). I thought I'd better warn you as this vid might give you the wrong idea about me and you seem no enemy of science.
@philhellenes Take another look at my channel. I was actually in the middle of making a video when you posted your comment. I took down a lot of videos that I had up on my channel the other night when I made the "I re-dedicated my life to Jesus Christ" video. I feel more spiritual than religious, and am just very confused right now. I watched a bunch of your vids before subscribing and I in no way rebuke science. I'm just afraid to say "I was wrong" but now be wrong and suffer in hell I guess.
@UNCRatDog However, I just still don't feel like God is up there. I don't know. I know that I sound crazy right now though. :( I just don't want God to hate me. I've been on what I call a spiritual journey for a very long time now. I've studied so many western and eastern religions and then came to my own belief system and now I just don't have any clue at all to be completely honest. I'm afraid that if God does exist, I don't want to make Him hate me or screw myself over. sigh.
@UNCRatDog "I'm confused right now." The vast majority of people are, though they are not as honest about it as you. Hell is just an idea to scare people. I think that WILL become clearer to you over time. As for God hating you, would you hate a child that disrespected you? Would you hate an ant that could not comprehend you? God, IF it exists, is highly unlikely to have a human's ridiculous ego or a 5 year old's temper. It's almost insulting "the entity" to think it would. :)
@philhellenes I completely agree with you. I in fact, do not hate anyone. I really do love everyone, though I may hate their actions sometimes. (Ex. Hitler.) I think my video just went up, and I just put up ANOTHER one,"Does Religion Hinder Growth", which is a college essay that I read on camera for youtube. So, being Atheist, do you believe in a higher power but not in organized religion? Do you believe that we are all God in a sense, or do you not believe in God or a higher power altogether?
@UNCRatDog I don't believe in the supernatural in any form. That kinda rules out "gods" for me. But I could imagine a species in another universe that survived for 10s of billions of years, long enough to learn how to trigger/tune a Universe like its own, one fit for life,and did it maybe just because they could. It wouldn't be a god, technically, but what's in a name? :)
I think the odds are against it, but it all depends on whether making a Universe is possible. THAT is the question, for me.
@philhellenes Oh, and I would of course never hate a child and I completely understand your logic. I've told people that I think God is more forgiving and loving than people give Him credit for in the past, but then completely started to doubt God altogether I guess. I felt God spoke to me the other night, but I'm wondering if it was just something I was trying to make myself feel or believe as I was watching "23 minutes in Hell" on youtube. Have you seen that? It scared me to death!!!
@UNCRatDog You must decide for yourself what happened "the other night". I don't think there's any rush. You can take your whole life pondering it. "23 Minutes in Hell"? Yeah, I've seen it and others like it. Part of me laughs. But I know others are not so...confident. So another part of me wants to give the makers a slap.
I think you CAN be free of the fear of Hell but you'll need to read 2 or 3 books. See my old vid called "Destroy the Possibility of Hell: Only $30". Might help.
i jus wanna know who wrote the bible then? did one man write the bible? did a group of dudes come together and say to themselves...lets write a fucking epic, right now! i wanna know...
Wow, they even observed mutated replication! That's really interesting, thanks for bringing it to my attention!
For an all-powerful being it seems strangely easy to keep beating him back further and further into obscurity. I can imagine the scene in an old Peter Cushing film now:
Hoyle's shitty analogy. I am REALLY sick of seeing ignorant theists using this argument. Even *I* know that analogy is bollocks, Hoyle certainly would have known.
All he did was to give theists an argument which THEY believe is enough to prove to themself that there must be a God, while the rest of us sit here in pure frustration knowing what utter bollocks it is.
I truly appreciate the deconstruction of Hoyle's analogy, although I'm having a hard time fitting it onto a bumper sticker :) I find it interesting how often stubbornness and arrogance go hand in hand with the two extremes: geniuses and imbeciles.
Hoyle's genius was in solving the mystery of the transformation of helium into carbon. He proposed that two helium nuclei could fuse to form berryllium-8. This would allow it to fuse with another helium nucleus to form carbon. That in turn would propagate the formation of matter. He had hoped this would lend credibility to the notion that the Universe was being destroyed and replenished in such a way as to make an eternal, "steady state."
Dr Eckard Wimmer Created RNA from its chemical components. The RNA is a self replicating virus identical to its natural version.
Why have you not heard of this because there is no money in telling you, its met with offence by religious groups and it complex to understand. Thanks Phil for informing people willing to listen.
I think some people don't realize the concept 'Atheist' is something without Leaders, Prophets any of that i can expose the Pope as being a normal man with more wicket and evil behavoir and thought than me with that i 'offend' the entire katholic church lol i do not know the man spoken of in the video, i don't even call myself a Atheist but somehow am drawned to bull shit propaganda titels like this
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When you honor a genius, and they are not a genius, that would mean that you're not intelligent. The genius will be recognized through the philosophy and religion of aesthetics, not science.
In the genius' renaissance an individual is not an artist, scientist, athlete, ... , but all in one, with an integrated mind / body and a true spiritual relationship.
@magick205 Why do you want to call a dead man an ass hole? He can't defend himself. Say that to someone alive and if they are like me, they will slap the shit out of you so hard you will think you are tinker bell for about 1/2 an hour.
You take Hoyle out of context. Hoyle is telling us the unlikelyhood of such a thing. In Evolution From Space (1981 Dent) Hoyle and his student Chandra Wickramasinghe, PhD write 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power as the chance of life forming by accident.
@boblackey1 So the fuck what? If you throw a die out on the road there is only one outcome and that outcome, no matter what it is, has a 1 in 6 chance of happening. that is unlikely, according to probability but that does not mean it is impossible. Out of a number of outcomes there will always be one, correct? Just because the chances of us being here by "accident" are slim, the very fact that we are here is testament to the fact that it happened, if indeed, it was by "accident."
@crackerkiller89 But according to Hoyle it COULDN'T have been by accident. The odds against are 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power, a number according to Hoyle, is larger than the number of all the atoms in the known universe. Actually Hoyle wrote that this number makes the accidental origin of life as we know it on earth "out of the question" and said that one wonders if life ever did have an origin. That just maybe as with the universe, life has always existed. And it arrived here via comets.
@crackerkiller89 Also Hoyle made the 747 comment in an interview in 1982. Hoyle knew a 747 and a yeast cell have the same number of moving parts. So Hoyle made the comment to make on think about how unlikely complex things are to have emerged by chance. Hoyle never intended for his remark to be used in the sence that life and airplane come to be in similar ways. To Hoyle, 500,000 million years wasn't enough time for life to have evolved by chance. It happened in and came from outerspace.
@NoxieDC Sad thing for you is that to prove him wrong, you need to know more than him. And if you try, you may end up just refining his theory... how shameful that would be, innit?
@shayneby no its just that there wrong when the evidence goes against them no matter how smart they are if the evidence says your wrong then you are wrong
Fred, may have lost out to the big bang after 1965 when Penzias & Wilson discovered it's background radiation however his contribution to Science was none the less quite remarkable. Well done Fred!
Sounds to me like fred was simply implying that the chances of all the atoms forming the universe as-is by mere chance is next to impossible...which in that case i would have to agree. Just like a hurricane blowing through a junkyard making a 747 isnt very likely. However that doesnt mean that the white bearded man in the sky is going to smite you if you dont tell him how awesome he is. The chances of his existence are less than that of the hurricane crafting the airplane.
The chance of the universe being what it is is one in one, because it's our universe, it's built-in to allow these things, and we only find that surprising because we have a bias towards life, being ourselves alive.
That's how I think we should see things. Just saying.
Einstein can ignore quantum mechanics, because his unfinished equations can (and do) account for everything quantum mechanics fails at (which is everything).
Thanks, I'm the third. If you want more info, check out "nassim haramein"s stuff on youtube (or google video). This is actually a big request considering the length of his presentations. He doesn't seem to agree with quantum mechanics, string theory, dark matter or the strong and weak force. This is a HUGE claim, and I think he delivers.
Haramein has already been shredded. The direct technological results of quantum mechanics are responsible for one QUARTER of the gross national products of the industrially developed nations. I can ONLY be amused when someone questions the revelations of quantum mechanics whilst using a computer, which depends upon the fine accuracy of quantum theory.
String theory IS highly questionable. The strong and weak force are real, unless you think atom bombs are simply explosives.
I've looked extensively for criticism of Haramein's work. I would like very much to find any critique video or otherwise that talks about Haramein's failing.
I really don't want to keep supporting his work if it's a fraud. I looked around a lot and haven't found a hint of this. It's my understanding that his papers have passed peer review with flying colors. He claims to have the fabled "theory of everything".
He replaces the strong/weak force with gravity within the vicinity of a black hole
But if he replaces the strong and weak forces with gravity, and this happens to work within the vicinity of a black hole, how does he manage to do the same trick with anything that doesn't happen to be in the vicinity of a black hole?
I'm sorry, I'm certainly no expert, but everything you've said in this thread just sounds wildly wrong. Cont.---
I actually have started wondering whether or not Haramein is correct, but his explanation is that inside every atom is a black hole. I checked to see if his stuff passed peer review and I can't find it anywhere. Maybe he's just another quack?
Yes you will have trouble, I thought I'd recognised the name, but wasn't sure. I just spend 10 mins with a coffee checking it out. He is indeed a crank, both his, and his collaborator on the GUT, one Elizabeth Rauscher, have both had there Wikipedia pages removed.
It seems that no other professionals take him seriously, nothing is published in any reputable journals, and peer review? Forget it.
Google, his name, or hers, followed by critic, or go check out the forum at Randis Ed Foundation.
The James Randi board only expressed skepticism and did nothing to address his paper. Maybe that's because he's really wrong though. I heard about the wiki page. I guess I'm not going to be recommending him anymore.
"Well, we just did, asshole. And that's one more gap you've lost."
That line is just awesome. That's pretty much intelligent design - a series of arguments consisting solely of ignorance. "I don't understand it, therefore God made it." The only evidence they're submitting is the empty space between their ears.
Since God has spoken in His Word, which is a light, we need to hear Him. Nobody just follows the facts, but we need guidance to understand the facts, and the God centered context of design for the universe. Faith breaks the barrier of ignorance, b/c it is based on the assurance of truth of God, which is eternal. Christ is God's Truth, & His Lordship over all things which He created hence we ought to repent of our rebeliion, and trust in His blood for the redemption of ourselves from death.
where does no faith lead? Ever ask that? You either believe Jesus and his message of love towards humanity was real or not. That's not blind. We have a set of guidelines there for us. Atheism has no guide we just go off into the world creating our own rules and people live their life by deciding what's right and wrong in their own mind and it's just guess work what comes out of it for the human individual. Either they're decent human beings or sick people. Atheism's no better I'm afraid it's ...
Flexibility and patience 100pjp001, i seek knowldage i dream of the stars, but even if in my life i cant get both i will live a good life and die with a smile looking at the generations to come.
I know what your saying, we can't get answers like that crystal clear but that's what makes people intelligent, curiosity.
"i seek knowldage i dream of the stars, but even if in my life i cant get both i will live a good life and die with a smile looking at the generations to come."
good for you.
But it's concerning to see the behaviours of modern culture. I don't know if it's just my country the UK. But people seem to be less responsible and less committed everywhere I look.
"But it's concerning to see the behaviours of modern culture. I don't know if it's just my country the UK. But people seem to be less responsible and less committed everywhere I look."
And why is that if you bring it to the conversation...
"And why is that if you bring it to the conversation... "
Drunk culture which increases by the year in a reckless way, fights in the street, sex in public places (where's their shame?). The moto behind that is "we only live once, get while you can" That's the essence of atheism.
Young girls getting pregnant that's on the increase, they also get pregnant deliberately to claim money nowadays.
Many more problems with people but hope I've given you an idea of how people are today.
Yea remember the old days when people where respectful due religion....
No wars, no rape, no murder, the church the most clean institution on the earth... every walked straight because the fear of hell and the wonderful carrot of heaven, oh what a wonderful days isnt it?
......those generations back then. What influence do you think that would have had on them?
They would be more encouraged to take people's lands, have all the women they want, live like reckless animals just focusing on one's happiness in whatever way they can like what I mentioned above before their time's up.
Don't give that BS to me like it was the fault of religion of those brutal times.
People just simply made the choice of not living by Christ's words that's why them things happened.
Thats when you switch from a reasonable person to a fanatic. Read a history book and stop imaging "what happen in the past", just like you imagine your 2000 years dead god.
Hence, materialism is an inconsistent, incoherent, false worlview, that denies the basis of science, and actually leads into futility and despair. Nobody can live consistently with their actual materialist/atheist philosophy of life, b/c as intelligent, moral, spiritual, human beings, our very nature is ANTI-materialistic. Atheists must suppress the truth of God's being as they co-opt a Christian worldview. This schizophrenia is evidence of their failed argument.
"Hence, materialism is an inconsistent, incoherent, false worlview, that denies the basis of science, and actually leads into futility and despair."
Science is based on empiricism. Empiricism supports materialism.
"our very nature is ANTI-materialistic."
You're using equivocation when it comes to materialism. First you use it to mean "naturalism", then you use it to mean "consumerism". This really does seem to be your favorite logical fallacy.
...... just as blind I'm afraid. Atheism goes either way for people. People for instance in this country don't have much of a clue what's right or wrong. They just live, go out get drunk, get pregnant, be like the governments and get greedy.
If there's no one there to judge our acts then how do we influence people like our governments and bankers to change their ways if we all apparently live once.
If the them people decided to have a proper heart, that'd get in the way of their one life.
"I'm sorry whatever does morality, ie:promoting compassion and minimizing suffering, have to do with believing in a supernatural being? "
If you say that "people" say we should live by them ways then people are not going to bother doing that eventually, were only good now because we have goodness still in us (just about).
Compassion towards others get in the way of those out there that are well off. Whereas if we were made aware for a fact that GOD told us we must abide by them laws to...
...be a part of his Kingdom also the reason why were put on this earth, then wouldn't people like the rich and powerful think twice before neglecting and treating people badly?
I'd like to see just one Boeing747 put itself together in 500 million years. Unfortunately when we put reality into the equation we tend to face a lot of holes.
Don't you get it? It has already been proven as possible. Don't you know what the boeing 747 stands for? It stands for a cell. What is a cell? One of the products of the long term evolution of a self-replicating system. Abiogenesis = the origin of the first self-replicating molecule. The self-assembly and evolution of self-replicating molecules has already been proven in a lab, what more do you want?
Comparing a Boeing747 to a cell might work if a cell was nothing but Jello, but in real life it simply doesn't work.
In fact, anything comparable is beyond human technology. We're talking each individual cell being like an advanced air force base serving a huge number of other bases. Each of these computers has supercomputers beyond our technology. All of them put together support systems even more complicated.
Not to mention having the parts in the first place.
I repeat, abiogenesis isnt the origin of the first cell, it's the origin of the first self-replicating molecule the cell came until much later as a product of its evolution. Don't be dense. Maybe you'd want to watch the video again.
when the parts of a 747 have the same natural properties as atoms and molecules, you'll get your wish. There is no natural process for self assembling planes. There IS a well known process for molecular bonding, it's called polymerization.
Maybe, but we're talking very tiny pieces of a comparatively huge system just accidentally falling together out of nothing. This could work with something like oxygen, theoretically, but oxygen is far from a living organism.
Not when you have trillions of trillions of all the needed components and more floating around, constantly on chemical reaction with one another. Due to the laws of physics we know that on that environment it was almost bound to happen. I'll go ahead and say that it not happening was more unlikely.
Then you may as well be saying that all the other planets around us not having any life on them is even more unlikely. This is starting to sound like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. "With an improbability factor of 98,473,628,176,364.971. Thank you for visiting the planet Earth"
Anyway, we still have a problem. Cells are pretty big and extremely complicated. On top of that you simply cannot remove a piece, or simplify it in any way. It all has to be put together as one piece at one time.
'Then you may as well be saying that all the other planets around us not having any life on them is even more unlikely. '
How do you arrive at that? I was talking about an environment like that of the early earth, don't know if any other planet in the solar system has ever had conditions similar to those of the early earth.
'Anyway, we still have a problem. Cells are pretty big and extremely complicated. On top of that you simply cannot remove a piece, or simplify it in any way. It all has to be put together as one piece at one time.'
Wrong. Irreducible complexity is a myth, you should know why this is by now. Example: The RNA molecule mentioned in the video is a 'cell' stripped off everything but its genetic code but it can still self-replicate, why is this? Because you are wrong.
Hey Genius! Where did the DNA come from? Are you surmising that a primordial soup of non-living things spontaneously created a set of instructions for a cell? I-Dont-Think-So.
This sort of comment tells me how ignorant some people are... RNA is, if you will, a simpler form of DNA. If you knew how this happened, because it could and it probably did you'd understand. Read the article. It has already been proven as possible, elements comming together to form self-replicating, evolving systems completely by their own on an environment very like the early earth.
Please abstain yourself from sarcastic comments before you aknowledge all of the facts.
I could slam two piles of mashed potatoes together, but no matter how I go about it, even if I added peas into the mix, it would still be mashed potatoes and it wouldn't be a comprehendible language.
Potatoes..? Po-tat-oes..? Don't you know anything about atoms and molecules, about chemistry in general, about anything? Are you even closely aware to how monumentally stupid your statement was? Stop talking, just stop. Everything you say just further reveals how incredibly, mind numbingly, frustratingly and aggresively ignorant you are on the subject. It's bloody offensive. Please just stop.
To keep it simple.. I couldn't think of a worse example at this time. Please, come up with a better one. RNA is completely irrelevant. Genetic code, on the other hand, is very relevant. Going that way would be too easy though. The Hamlet reference for example. I'm sure you're familiar with it.
DNA is genetic code, RNA is just a group of protein equivalents used to convert the genetic information into something useful. this is done through ribosomes on the E.R.
Modern eukaryotes that you seem to think about probably work very differently compared to early cells. RNA can be used to store genetic information. This happens in RNA-viruses for example. RNA is thought to be a good candidate for the genetic code of the early cells because in addition to the cabability to store genetic information it can also achieve chemical catalysis. The active site of a ribosome for example is composed entirely of RNA.
Stop feeding off creationist propaganda and do some actual, unbiased research into the subject before trying to argue against something you obviously know next to nothing about.
I'm not feeding off any propaganda. To be honest, atheist propaganda is more prominent and less convenient. I'm not one to put blind faith in an unproven, and often disproved theory.
Evolution has been disproved time and time again, but it just adds a new theory. Kind of like adding more bloatware to Windows, a flawed system, every time it gets a virus.
Creationism on the other hand is easily disproved. The simple fact that it hasn't been is good enough for me.
My personal walk with logic.
mattgresh1 2 months ago
hoyle wasn't a genius imho
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck your ass
most4536 5 months ago
If we lived in a universe where god was a airplane,maybe his analogy would make some sence but,The airplaine is not alive
Imirror1 6 months ago
@Imirror1 Type in "Ben Stein vs Richard Dawkins interview" in the search box here at YouTube. You will see that even Richard Dawkins DOES NOT KNOW THE ANSWERS to the BIG QUESTIONS!!! How did the universe begin and how did life begin on earth??? Dawkins is knocked out of the park by Stein who clearly shows Dawkins DO NOT KNOW!! Dawkins is ignorant about these important questions. AND NOW GET THIS! Dawkins turns to
Fred Hoyle's panspermina theory to try and save face. Hoyle is going to be RIGHT!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 The scientist says proudly;We don't know.The bibletards says God did it and,i say;God made you stupid to be debunkt on youtube.Thanks god for the youtube
Imirror1 5 months ago
@Imirror1 Richard Dawkins says he doesn't know HOW the universe began and he doesn't know HOW life began but he says he is an atheist!! People who believe in God have NOT been debunked on YouTube or anywhere! Name just ONE person who has debunked a man who believes in God! Just one! There are NO people who have done that or can do that. The believer in God clearly operates on faith plus his spin on the scientific facts. See Huge Ross, Phd webiste "Reasons to Believe" for an example.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1
God does not need to be "debunked". A good claim for the existance of god needs to be proposed.
Callirgos1 4 months ago 8
@Callirgos1 Well go to the Hugh Ross website "Reasons to Believe" This Phd astronomer and his team of scientists have dozens of scientific reasons that to them proves God exists. I'm sure you can find a few that will impress even you. Athiesm is a dead end. It can not answer the big questions such as "how did the universe come about?", "how did life begin?", "If the big bang really happen, what caused it?" "If all matter, energy, time and space began to exist at big bang, what was before that"?
boblackey1 4 months ago
@boblackey1
Sorry, I don't believe in magic. It's kind of a rule of mine.
Callirgos1 4 months ago
@Callirgos1 Well then you can't believe Stephen Hawking's claim that the universe created ITSELF OUT OF NOTHING and when it first popped into existence out of nothing, it was smaller than an atom and ALl energy, matter, time and space (no place outside of it for you to be located) was in this little universe which then BIG BANGED or inflated into what we have today which is so big that we can't understand how big it is. And God didn't do this miracle, it created itself. What magic!!
boblackey1 4 months ago
@boblackey1 Atheism itself doesn't answer these questions, it's just a description of non-belief regarding religious claims.
You asked what was BEFORE the big bang? In terms of the theory, there was no before, because time began at THAT point. Just like there is no temperature below zero Kelvin.
I can't be certain that God doesn't exist, but science is not in the certainty business. However it has already answered a LOT of big questions and is working on the rest.
finlarg 3 months ago
@boblackey1 Atheism is not meant to answer these questions, atheism is just the disbelief in any gods. science can answer these questions and i am sure if humans survive long enough i am sure it will. What can not answer these questions is religion, making stuff up so that you have an answer(wrong or not) dose not get you any closer to the truth. Saying IDK but this is what we do know as fact, that dose get us closer to the true answers, wild guesses and assumptions not so much.
Fireflygamer 1 month ago
Hoyle got religion he stated "one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of... ” "
he also beleived that viruses (much more complext than simple amines) travelled through space and drove evolution !!
That makes him crazy. he was a mathmatician/physicist and not a biologist or palaeontologist he should've stuck to his field.
"
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 One of Hoyle's Phd students, at Cambirdge University where Hoyle was chairman (boss) of the department of physics and astronomy, Chandra Wickramasinghe, who later was awarded the highest degree at Cambridge, the ScD, agrees with everything Hoyle held on life from space. Indeed Wickramasinghe came up with some of those ideas himself. Today he is considered a world authority on "interseller matter" and holds that the dust in space is actually life in the form of dried bacteria!!!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 So if Fred Hoyle was CRAZY, then so was Wickramasinghe. Chandra Wickramasinghe holds two doctor of science degrees. A Phd and the more impressive ScD. Wickramasinghe is a strong supporter that life did NOT begin on earth but in outer space and his website, scientific papers, books and experiments for the last 40 years keep gathering evidence that clearly points to panspermia as what happened. Life didn't begin here on earth! It is older than earth and came from outerspace!!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 Type "Ben Stein vs Richard Dawkins interview" in the YouTube search box!! Stein, as it is so easy to do with an evolutionists, a scientist, knocks Dawkins out of the box with question after question about how did the universe begin, who or what started the universe, how did life being etc. Dawkins clearly looks embarrassed as he continually says "I don't know" and "nobody knows". Now the kicker! Dawkins turns to Fred Hoyle's panspermia theory and high intelligence to save face. Ha!
boblackey1 6 months ago
No don't get me wrong. I was raised in a Christian home and have many wondeful Christian relatives but they don't have an answer either!!! They base their belief on what the Bible teaches and faith. Faith that God exists, the Jesus died for their sins and freely gives them eternal life and faith that the Bible is the Word of God. When I was a teenager and was taught evolution in high school I became an agnostic. Didn't want to but did. But to this day, nobody can answer the BIG questions for me!
boblackey1 6 months ago
LOl, just got to 4:00 mins....talking about SS.....
bakersteven3 6 months ago
Hoyle (when it comes to Evolution) is a bit of a crack pot. He thinks the Archeopteryx is a fake !! he also tohught up "Steady State theory", which is not correct either, so clever yes, genius NO.
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 Well more and more scientists are now agreeing with Hoyle that life probably did come from outerspace. Most not in agreement with Hoyle that life itself came from space and is older than the earth, but the building blocks of life did indeed come from outerspace via comets and rocks. Even the oceans, one water drop at a time, came from outerspace. So Hoyle's modern panspermia position is gaining more and more support.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 "Well more and more scientists are now agreeing with Hoyle that life probably did come from outerspace.", this theory has no evidence and is impossible to prove. As i've said it's a theory, but have we found any organics on any meteorites/comets? None that I know off, so no proof no cookie.
"Even the oceans, one water drop at a time, came from outerspace.", well yes and no, ALL elements are made in stars, so they all comes from space...but I doubt they "rained" down..
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 One reason Hoyle hated the Big Bang is it played right into the Roman Catholic Churches hands. And the first scientist to present it was also a Roman Catholic priest. The Big Bang: All energy, matter, time and space as we know it, came into existences at the big bang! Before the big bang, no energy to created you and me. No matter for us to be made with. No time for us AND NO SPACE INTO WHICH TO PUT US. NO place for us to be LOCATED!!!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 Also Fred Hoyle WAS a genius. No just clever. He could navigate via the stars at age 10. By age 12 was doing math that usually was found at the university level etc. Actually the guy on this video is full of shit too. He has NO idea HOW life started here on earth. Hoyle may end up right that life came from outerspace. No body has any idea how life began on earth. What was see in the lab is nowhere CLOSE to life. NOT CLOSE. Once Hoyle said maybe life never had a beginning. Could be.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 Hoyle genius is just yuor opinion. he somewhat loses credibility when he claims that Archeaoptyrx was a fake !! I've no problems with the idea of amino acids from space, no proof and probably never be able to, but his dabbling in Evolution made him look foolish. You're not correct that "!No body has any idea how life began on earth." we have plenty, and the primaeval soup is the best. As for yuo rpoint aobut the lab, it's difficult to repeat this in an experiment.
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 You are NOT up to date!! You need new books and data. It's been six months or more since I watched the presentation in the US on the science channel where the scientists SHOWED the amino acids AND the water drops that were encased in the space rocks they examined. I AM correct. NOBODY knows how life began and IF it was here on earth or came from outerspace. The outerspace model is fast becoming the best and will win in the end. If anyone knew how life began, we would all know it!!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 OK, it's on TV so it must be true, please point me towards a peer reviewed paper and I'll investigate. Thanks. Your dedication towards the "Out of space theory" is almost religious.
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 If ANYONE could explain how life began here on this planet, it would be front page headlines on the New York Times. The cover story on Time magazine. The lead story of NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. You are being silly! Chandra Wickramasinghe, Phd (under Hoyle at Cambridge) and holder of the highest degree offered at Cambridge, the ScD had reported his findings on the SCARS coronavirus and it had to have come from outerspace! Mike Baillie, Phd of Queens U. agrees!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 With respect I get my science from Nature, Science and other peer reviewed journals rather than TV programmes. No one has explained why Hoyle was anti evolution, why he actually attacked a fossil and tried to break it (Archeoptryx) !! As I pooint out Steady State theory has been debunked, so all he has left is the out fo space theory and all you can give me is the same guy who co-wrote the theory !! Sorry, not convinced.
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 There is not a fucking thing wrong with watching a TV program on the Science channel WITH scientists and they are allowing scientists present the evidence at hand and not only do you get to HEAR what the scientist has to say but you get to SEE the evidence. I continue to INSIST that YOU or anyone can explain how life arose on this planet. Sir Frances Crick, Phd admitted in a book that I have in my library that the GULF between non-life and life is so wide it is almost a miracle.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 "There is not a fucking thing wrong with watching a TV program on the Science channel WITH scientists ...", indeed nothing wrong but it's not science as such it's a TB programme edited in a certain way by a director. Can I assume you ar eunable to point towards any scienctific papers then ? That's all I ask. IF there's overwealming evidences (a spreviously claimed) then there should be plenty of papers by Hyle/Chandr. Crick was when ?? (even further out fo date than me !!)
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 Fred Hoyle was one of the great scientists of the 20th century. Hoyle won many prizes and as this guy here points out, Hoyle's original idea on how carbon and heavy elements are created in stars won a Nobel Prize. All of the work to prove the heavy elements formed in stars and not in the big bang was done by Hoyle and his Steady State guys. Of course they were trying to debunk the big bang so they had to find a place the heavy elements were made OTHER than in the big bang itself!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 And it was Hoyle who told the Big Bang guys that IF the big bang is correct, then there must be something leftover from something so powerful such as an echo coming from every place in the universe and it just isn't there. But in 1964 two Bell lab boys found it ACCIDENTALLY and won a Nobel Prize 13 years later. As to Hoyle's co-author who earned his Phd under Hoyle at Cambridge, Dr. Wickramasinghe is considered an international EXPERT on interstellar matter. Don't know him do you?
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 Nucleosynthesis was theories well before Hoyle and others (re:B2FH paper), in the 1920's. NB Hoyle was the least author of this paper. Anyway, this hero worship doesn't explain his antipathy for evolution ?
And why he attacked fossils ? does it!!
So, please tell me why he thought (with no good reason) that Archeoptyrx was faked ???
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@boblackey1 I've nothign against Hoyle, he was good but he also theoriesed so many ideas that occassionally some where correct. Like throwing a a dartbaord blindfolded, you will eventually got tripe 20 !!).
Alot of the things you are claiming seem to have been done by other people, CMB for a start, was theoriesed by Gamow in 1948 in a Nature article, of course this killed of the Steady State theory as well.
Like most scientist "standing on the shoulders of giants"
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 The Steady State theory continued to have support from many scientists and was a close runner up to the Big Bang until the early 60's when two guys at Bell Lab in New Jersey couldn't understand why this noise was coming from sky in every direction when they were trying to hook up a microwave system near New York City. Later it was determined this noise is the background radiation left over from the moment of creation 14 billion years ago. It earned them the Nobel prize.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 George Camow did NOT originate the Big Bang theory. He worked to refine it in Nature in 1948 but the original idea came from Monsigner George Lemaitre (1894-1966), a devout Christian and pirest who also taught astronomery and physics at Catholic University of Luvain. Lemaitre first presented his paper to Albert Einstein who rejected it and said his physics was poor. Later in the 1920's, observations by Edwin Hubble provided support&Lemaitre met again with Einstein who now agreed.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 OK, it's a potao,a dpotarto thing, he just didn't call it big bang. Bit baughty of Einstein.
You haven't answered my main problem with Hoyle, what is it with evolution?
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 The junkyard Boeing 747 thing wasn't to be taken seriously as this guy on this video does. Hoyle knew all the parts of a Boeing 747 wouldn't be in a particular junkyard. He was showing how utterly unlikely it is for something ALIVE to emerge on the earth. With the B2FH paper, Hoyle's part was CENTRAL to the paper. It was Hoyle who first had the idea and after the paper, it was turned over to Willy Fowler to prove it and later Fowler won the Nobel prize but Hoyle was left out.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 After Dr. Fowler won the Nobel Prize, Fowler told the press that he was surprised that he alone won for this work and it was Fred Hoyle who came up with the original idea and worked on most of the details of the theory. Fowler did the work in the lab to PROVE it was right. As to evolution, it is NOT true that Hoyle or Wickramasinghe reject evolution. What they reject is Darwinism. Life came from outerspace, is older than the earth and material from space drives evolution.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 Okay I just found info on the Archaeopteryx claims of forgery by Hoyle. According to what I just read on the internet, Fred Hoyle and his friend physicist Lee Spetner wrote a letter questioning if Archaeopteryx's feathers may be forged by Richard Owen to trap Charles Darwin. But the Brithish Museum of Naturea History compeltey rejected Hoyle and Spetner and wrote there was NO chance they could be right. Richard Owen (1802-1892) was a 19th century scientist who fought Darwin.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 Big problem with Hoyles theory, firstly only 10 have been found and these where found in Germany. The cospiracy theory doesn't include those found AFTER Darwin death !! The fossil was foudn AFTER publication of "Orgin of species" as well.
I'm yet to actual see any proof of the "life from outer space", i don't reject it but no organic material has been found in any meteroties, or comet, as far as I know.
Life is bound to be older than our planet, but where? and independant of us
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 I don't know anything about Owen but the research I did on this today on the net also said Hoyle and his writing partner, physicist Lee Spetner were not aware that a few other fossiles had been found. Until today I had missed Owen somehow but I now know that he fought Darwin hard and Hoyle and Spetner didn't like Darwin either. They thougth Darwin was all wrong about what drove evolution and I tend to think Hoyle may be right or half right and Darwin half wrong.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 As to organic material from space, YOU MUST HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE LOOP and have never read anything by Wickramasinghe who is doing most of the work on that. Google his name. But there is many other places such as this from Space News dated Dec 5th 2006. "Nasa scientists have found ORGANIC MATERIAL that formed in the distant reaches of the solar system in a meteorite that fell in Canada in 2000" etc etc. I wouldn't laugh at Hoyle on this. Hoyle, in the end, is going to be right!!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 I had never heard of Richard Owen but it says on the paper I just read that he didn't reject evolution but he strongly rejected Darwin's method of how evolution occurs which is EXACTLY what Hoyle did!! Also I was surprised this gentleman I had not heard of before coined the word "Dinosauria" which he said means "terrible lizzard or reptile" I also just read Fred Hoyle loved to pick fights with the orthodox position in science. I didn't know how often he did that. It was often!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 Richard Owen came up with the word "Dinosaur" and was the first director the the Natural History Museum in London. He was an ardent christian and lived around 120 years ago, things have moved on since then..for a start Archeoptyrx and genetics !! But he regularly claimed that the Archeoptyrx was FAKE, he even attacked one.
Using Owen is not really worthwhile, as he was an establishment character (hence the NHM gig!).
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 I think the analogy of how life began on this video here is also "shitty". There is NO evidence that the entire earth was ever covered with the material that would make something living and an electromagnetic breeze would be moving it around, stirring the brew, for 500 million years or 10 years. And why do two components that belong together naturally bond together. Who or what designed that? Did that just happen to fall out of the big bang accidentally?
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 Also I bought the book "Evolution From Space" in 1981 when it came out. It was written by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Phd, ScD. (Wickramasinghe did his Phd at Cambridge UNDER Hoyle) They caculated the odds of getting the most simple life form, something ALIVE!! at 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power. A number Hoyle said is greater that all the atoms in the universe. I'm rather sure this caculation had to do with getting the enzymes right to be ALIVE!!
boblackey1 6 months ago
@boblackey1 "They caculated the odds of getting the most simple life form, something ALIVE!! at 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power.", yes this is the usual number given by Intelligen Designers..it's mathematicalyl and probabiltiy obtuse and wrong. You only stand a 1 in 49 million chanc eof winnig the UK loterry but it still happens to someone ! It only has to happen once and it has.
This dodgy use of probability is most vexing.
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power is NOT wrong. It could be but you don't know that it is!!! Biologists Frank Salisbury: "Nobody has explained the origin of life on earth and even the "simplest" living cell is NOW KNOWN to be UNIMAGINABLY COMPLEX. As life has been found deeper and deeper in the fossil record and older strada, more scientists are now saying there isn't enough time. That life or it's building blocks must have come from outerspace."
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 There is now proof that the building blocks of life and virises come from outerspace. About six months ago they showed the amino acids inbedded in the space rock and water droplets too on the Science channel here in the states. Several scientists were involved and they also agreed that the oceans came from outerspace. I suggest you Google Chandra Wickramasinghe, Phd and look at his website and read his papers. You can also put his name in the search box on YouTube for some vids.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 Also I invite you to go to wwwdotpanspermiadotorg At this website you can read tons of material about the evidence that has been gathered over the years that strongly indicates life came from outerspace. The NASA Stardust spacecraft is another experiment where dust was collected coming from a comet and Nasa said it turned out to be a tar like organic subtance!!! Life didn't originate here on earth. The data shows that is impossible just as Hoyle said in 1981. Life is cosmic!
boblackey1 6 months ago
"There is NO evidence that the entire earth was ever covered with the material that would make something living and an electromagnetic breeze "
doesn't have to be. No life in the south pole arctic or Arizona desert but life exists elsewhere.
bakersteven3 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 But there is NO evidence the earth clearly is the place where life began! That is just a theory, guess work with NOTHING to back it up. The Miller/Urey experiements which produced amino acids in the lab is light years away from something living. Sir Frances Crick, Phd (Crick won the Nobel Prize with Watson for their work on DNA) said that gulf between NON living material and LIVING material is so wide that it seems almost an mircale. Hoyle's life from space gives more places & time
boblackey1 6 months ago
@bakersteven3 Dr. Wickramasinghe has informed me personally via mail that the evidence is hard and clear. Life did NOT originate here on earth but arrived from outerspace! He said he and Hoyle first rang that bell in 1981 in their book "Evolution From Space". Wickramasinghe is also convinced that the cosmic dust in deep space is bacteria and that many infections/sickness comes from space. A recent Newsweek cover story dug into the theory and it has much more support than you think.
boblackey1 6 months ago
I have read Fred Hoyle's book "The Black Cloud". It was fucking awesome! Read it, if you like science and especially cosmology. Verrrrry verry interesting. Has tastes of "The War of the Worlds" in it too....page turner
CntrBrdr 7 months ago
Hoyle has a bad habit of using awkwardly structured run-on sentences.
sweetsweatyfeet 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
who exactly do you think you are.
DeaflyBlind 8 months ago
most is discovered from either guess work or by accident however still thought this to be a thought provoking video which I like.
TEARDUCTER 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Einstein was wrong about Relativity
agathangelidisantonis.blogspot.com
argiman1 11 months ago
The link about the RNA enzymes self replication isn't working, here's a working one:
scripps (dot)edu/news/press/010809 (dot) html
Or you can find the abstract here:
sciencemag (dot) org/content/323/5918/1229 (dot) abstract
BioLogicalNerd 1 year ago
Blimey! I need to brush up on my RNA. I'm a DNA shovinist, I freely admit it!
MarkArandjus 1 year ago
I very much enjoyed this video. Thanks!
thetravelingboy 1 year ago
Cripes. My words exactly. Did you read my mind? Oh, I've subbed already. Oh, we're friends already... :)
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” ~ Richard Feynman
kev680808 1 year ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
There are no facts, only interpretations. ~Friedrich Nietzsche
kev680808 1 year ago
Comment removed
kev680808 1 year ago
Comment removed
kev680808 1 year ago
Even Relativity didn't get a Nobel Prize...
arsenelupin123 1 year ago
Yes, we geniuses CAN be wrong, but it's very rare! (Joking) : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
I agree with you Phil but he was just being critical i think. As you said he was an atheist but even scientists can be unbending in their ideas. Basic human nature, I dont want to be wrong
ORACLE063 1 year ago
Thanks for the Hoyle quote in the info bar. I wonder why he became a deist? My only conjecture is that, as people grow older and death becomes more of an actuality, rather than a sort of vague shadow lurking on the edge of awareness, it's very tempting to look for refuge in the idea of an afterlife, no matter how tenuous that afterlife may be.
colourmegone 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Al-Quran has 1400 years ago and Muslim Scientists has been declared "He (God) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness".
Al Quran sura Az Zumar;6
".....He (God) makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. . . ."
Have the Bible and scientists states "He (God ) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness"?
mollenth 1 year ago
awesome sauce! >:D i wonder how creationists can lie to themselves about science all the time. why can't they just do what most christians do, and accept it alongside their faith? anyways, you're not arrogant! you're bright and you make a lot of sense, but i've never seen you act "arrogant." they're probably just pissed cuz you make a better arguement for atheism than they ever could for religion.
Viinasu91 1 year ago
True.
Mattyb88ful 1 year ago
I have actually found an intelligent person on youtube! (Just kidding, I know there are intelligent people out there, but you definitely are one of them!) :)
UNCRatDog 1 year ago
@UNCRatDog Thanks for the subscription, but you might want to re-think that decision. After a look at your channel I see you are deeply religious. I am a pretty outspoken atheist and I try to argue against your beliefs, almost constantly. I do this because I think organised religion is a form of thought-control and disinformation about science (I KNOW you disagree). I thought I'd better warn you as this vid might give you the wrong idea about me and you seem no enemy of science.
philhellenes 1 year ago
@philhellenes Take another look at my channel. I was actually in the middle of making a video when you posted your comment. I took down a lot of videos that I had up on my channel the other night when I made the "I re-dedicated my life to Jesus Christ" video. I feel more spiritual than religious, and am just very confused right now. I watched a bunch of your vids before subscribing and I in no way rebuke science. I'm just afraid to say "I was wrong" but now be wrong and suffer in hell I guess.
UNCRatDog 1 year ago
@UNCRatDog However, I just still don't feel like God is up there. I don't know. I know that I sound crazy right now though. :( I just don't want God to hate me. I've been on what I call a spiritual journey for a very long time now. I've studied so many western and eastern religions and then came to my own belief system and now I just don't have any clue at all to be completely honest. I'm afraid that if God does exist, I don't want to make Him hate me or screw myself over. sigh.
UNCRatDog 1 year ago
@UNCRatDog "I'm confused right now." The vast majority of people are, though they are not as honest about it as you. Hell is just an idea to scare people. I think that WILL become clearer to you over time. As for God hating you, would you hate a child that disrespected you? Would you hate an ant that could not comprehend you? God, IF it exists, is highly unlikely to have a human's ridiculous ego or a 5 year old's temper. It's almost insulting "the entity" to think it would. :)
philhellenes 1 year ago
@philhellenes I completely agree with you. I in fact, do not hate anyone. I really do love everyone, though I may hate their actions sometimes. (Ex. Hitler.) I think my video just went up, and I just put up ANOTHER one,"Does Religion Hinder Growth", which is a college essay that I read on camera for youtube. So, being Atheist, do you believe in a higher power but not in organized religion? Do you believe that we are all God in a sense, or do you not believe in God or a higher power altogether?
UNCRatDog 1 year ago
@UNCRatDog I don't believe in the supernatural in any form. That kinda rules out "gods" for me. But I could imagine a species in another universe that survived for 10s of billions of years, long enough to learn how to trigger/tune a Universe like its own, one fit for life,and did it maybe just because they could. It wouldn't be a god, technically, but what's in a name? :)
I think the odds are against it, but it all depends on whether making a Universe is possible. THAT is the question, for me.
philhellenes 1 year ago
@philhellenes Oh, and I would of course never hate a child and I completely understand your logic. I've told people that I think God is more forgiving and loving than people give Him credit for in the past, but then completely started to doubt God altogether I guess. I felt God spoke to me the other night, but I'm wondering if it was just something I was trying to make myself feel or believe as I was watching "23 minutes in Hell" on youtube. Have you seen that? It scared me to death!!!
UNCRatDog 1 year ago
@UNCRatDog You must decide for yourself what happened "the other night". I don't think there's any rush. You can take your whole life pondering it. "23 Minutes in Hell"? Yeah, I've seen it and others like it. Part of me laughs. But I know others are not so...confident. So another part of me wants to give the makers a slap.
I think you CAN be free of the fear of Hell but you'll need to read 2 or 3 books. See my old vid called "Destroy the Possibility of Hell: Only $30". Might help.
philhellenes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i jus wanna know who wrote the bible then? did one man write the bible? did a group of dudes come together and say to themselves...lets write a fucking epic, right now! i wanna know...
syrensounds 1 year ago
I like the 11 dimensional M Theory, it's string theory expanded. Look it up :)
danrayson 1 year ago
Do you have a link to an interesting article on the self formation of RNA?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer It's in the notes under the video. :)
philhellenes 1 year ago
@philhellenes
OFFS!
My excuse is that I had the rational part of my brain switched off because I was listening to what you were saying :)
Cheers, will read it.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@philhellenes
Wow, they even observed mutated replication! That's really interesting, thanks for bringing it to my attention!
For an all-powerful being it seems strangely easy to keep beating him back further and further into obscurity. I can imagine the scene in an old Peter Cushing film now:
1: Vampire attacks man.
2: Man pulls out crucifix to fight back vampire.
3: Vampire pulls out a microscope.
4: Man is fucked.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Hoyle's shitty analogy. I am REALLY sick of seeing ignorant theists using this argument. Even *I* know that analogy is bollocks, Hoyle certainly would have known.
All he did was to give theists an argument which THEY believe is enough to prove to themself that there must be a God, while the rest of us sit here in pure frustration knowing what utter bollocks it is.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
I truly appreciate the deconstruction of Hoyle's analogy, although I'm having a hard time fitting it onto a bumper sticker :) I find it interesting how often stubbornness and arrogance go hand in hand with the two extremes: geniuses and imbeciles.
LeWoVoc 1 year ago
Hoyle's genius was in solving the mystery of the transformation of helium into carbon. He proposed that two helium nuclei could fuse to form berryllium-8. This would allow it to fuse with another helium nucleus to form carbon. That in turn would propagate the formation of matter. He had hoped this would lend credibility to the notion that the Universe was being destroyed and replenished in such a way as to make an eternal, "steady state."
Christheatheist1 1 year ago
Dr Eckard Wimmer Created RNA from its chemical components. The RNA is a self replicating virus identical to its natural version.
Why have you not heard of this because there is no money in telling you, its met with offence by religious groups and it complex to understand. Thanks Phil for informing people willing to listen.
RegretfullyYes 2 years ago 6
@RegretfullyYes but that was all over the media...
djpob 4 months ago
I think some people don't realize the concept 'Atheist' is something without Leaders, Prophets any of that i can expose the Pope as being a normal man with more wicket and evil behavoir and thought than me with that i 'offend' the entire katholic church lol i do not know the man spoken of in the video, i don't even call myself a Atheist but somehow am drawned to bull shit propaganda titels like this
haashond 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When you honor a genius, and they are not a genius, that would mean that you're not intelligent. The genius will be recognized through the philosophy and religion of aesthetics, not science.
In the genius' renaissance an individual is not an artist, scientist, athlete, ... , but all in one, with an integrated mind / body and a true spiritual relationship.
You're Welcome
honorablegenius 2 years ago
"We just did asshole!" Now that's classic. All nice and calm, then wham! Good video. 5* and subbed.
magick205 2 years ago 4
@magick205 Why do you want to call a dead man an ass hole? He can't defend himself. Say that to someone alive and if they are like me, they will slap the shit out of you so hard you will think you are tinker bell for about 1/2 an hour.
You take Hoyle out of context. Hoyle is telling us the unlikelyhood of such a thing. In Evolution From Space (1981 Dent) Hoyle and his student Chandra Wickramasinghe, PhD write 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power as the chance of life forming by accident.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 So the fuck what? If you throw a die out on the road there is only one outcome and that outcome, no matter what it is, has a 1 in 6 chance of happening. that is unlikely, according to probability but that does not mean it is impossible. Out of a number of outcomes there will always be one, correct? Just because the chances of us being here by "accident" are slim, the very fact that we are here is testament to the fact that it happened, if indeed, it was by "accident."
crackerkiller89 1 year ago
@crackerkiller89 But according to Hoyle it COULDN'T have been by accident. The odds against are 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power, a number according to Hoyle, is larger than the number of all the atoms in the known universe. Actually Hoyle wrote that this number makes the accidental origin of life as we know it on earth "out of the question" and said that one wonders if life ever did have an origin. That just maybe as with the universe, life has always existed. And it arrived here via comets.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@crackerkiller89 Also Hoyle made the 747 comment in an interview in 1982. Hoyle knew a 747 and a yeast cell have the same number of moving parts. So Hoyle made the comment to make on think about how unlikely complex things are to have emerged by chance. Hoyle never intended for his remark to be used in the sence that life and airplane come to be in similar ways. To Hoyle, 500,000 million years wasn't enough time for life to have evolved by chance. It happened in and came from outerspace.
boblackey1 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are truely deluded Philhellenes and you think Sir Fred Hoyle was wrong to no longer believe such nonsense.
So funny how the previously top atheists always make mistakes according to atheists when they no longer believe in their fantasies. LOL
shayneby 2 years ago
Hoyle was a genius because of his discoveries. That does not mean he is 100% infallible.
NoxieDC 2 years ago 23
@NoxieDC
I read recently that Einstein wrote the foreword to a book in which it was claimed plate tectonics were just not possible :)
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NoxieDC Sad thing for you is that to prove him wrong, you need to know more than him. And if you try, you may end up just refining his theory... how shameful that would be, innit?
bocckoka 1 year ago
@shayneby no its just that there wrong when the evidence goes against them no matter how smart they are if the evidence says your wrong then you are wrong
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Fred, may have lost out to the big bang after 1965 when Penzias & Wilson discovered it's background radiation however his contribution to Science was none the less quite remarkable. Well done Fred!
centurey8901 2 years ago 10
Comment removed
arsenelupin123 2 years ago
Sounds to me like fred was simply implying that the chances of all the atoms forming the universe as-is by mere chance is next to impossible...which in that case i would have to agree. Just like a hurricane blowing through a junkyard making a 747 isnt very likely. However that doesnt mean that the white bearded man in the sky is going to smite you if you dont tell him how awesome he is. The chances of his existence are less than that of the hurricane crafting the airplane.
NewBlueSon 2 years ago 2
The chance of the universe being what it is is one in one, because it's our universe, it's built-in to allow these things, and we only find that surprising because we have a bias towards life, being ourselves alive.
That's how I think we should see things. Just saying.
arsenelupin123 2 years ago 9
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 27
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArrogantAtheist
"Atheists FTW!!!".; No wonder Atheists are so fucked up...
tthomaselli2 1 year ago
Einstein can ignore quantum mechanics, because his unfinished equations can (and do) account for everything quantum mechanics fails at (which is everything).
megamanium 2 years ago
What you say disagrees with what every expert has ever said about those well-studied equations.
You're either an idiot, a liar, or a genius beyond normal human comprehension. I know which you're NOT. :)
philhellenes 2 years ago
Thanks, I'm the third. If you want more info, check out "nassim haramein"s stuff on youtube (or google video). This is actually a big request considering the length of his presentations. He doesn't seem to agree with quantum mechanics, string theory, dark matter or the strong and weak force. This is a HUGE claim, and I think he delivers.
megamanium 2 years ago
Haramein has already been shredded. The direct technological results of quantum mechanics are responsible for one QUARTER of the gross national products of the industrially developed nations. I can ONLY be amused when someone questions the revelations of quantum mechanics whilst using a computer, which depends upon the fine accuracy of quantum theory.
String theory IS highly questionable. The strong and weak force are real, unless you think atom bombs are simply explosives.
philhellenes 2 years ago
I've looked extensively for criticism of Haramein's work. I would like very much to find any critique video or otherwise that talks about Haramein's failing.
I really don't want to keep supporting his work if it's a fraud. I looked around a lot and haven't found a hint of this. It's my understanding that his papers have passed peer review with flying colors. He claims to have the fabled "theory of everything".
He replaces the strong/weak force with gravity within the vicinity of a black hole
megamanium 2 years ago
Sorry to jump in on someone else's "debate".
But if he replaces the strong and weak forces with gravity, and this happens to work within the vicinity of a black hole, how does he manage to do the same trick with anything that doesn't happen to be in the vicinity of a black hole?
I'm sorry, I'm certainly no expert, but everything you've said in this thread just sounds wildly wrong. Cont.---
martiangrundy 2 years ago
I actually have started wondering whether or not Haramein is correct, but his explanation is that inside every atom is a black hole. I checked to see if his stuff passed peer review and I can't find it anywhere. Maybe he's just another quack?
megamanium 2 years ago
Yes you will have trouble, I thought I'd recognised the name, but wasn't sure. I just spend 10 mins with a coffee checking it out. He is indeed a crank, both his, and his collaborator on the GUT, one Elizabeth Rauscher, have both had there Wikipedia pages removed.
It seems that no other professionals take him seriously, nothing is published in any reputable journals, and peer review? Forget it.
Google, his name, or hers, followed by critic, or go check out the forum at Randis Ed Foundation.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
The James Randi board only expressed skepticism and did nothing to address his paper. Maybe that's because he's really wrong though. I heard about the wiki page. I guess I'm not going to be recommending him anymore.
megamanium 2 years ago
We know what's inside atoms... We've split them open...
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago 8
----Cont.
I take it this removal of the strong and weak forces, and replacing it with gravity, is part of the basis for his GUT?
BTW. If he indeed did have a GUT, I'm sure wed pretty much all have heard something about it.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
@philhellenes
That's interesting, in what way are computers linked to quantum mechanics?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Damn. You favourited a video of mine. Oh well, you can remove it easily enough. :)
philhellenes 2 years ago
i've got that book!
anyway, it's pretty weird how creationists use hoyle's arguments.
franzpolak 2 years ago
You have a LOT of books. And thank you for the recommendation you sent me. I'll keep my eyes peeled. :)
philhellenes 2 years ago
"Well, we just did, asshole. And that's one more gap you've lost."
That line is just awesome. That's pretty much intelligent design - a series of arguments consisting solely of ignorance. "I don't understand it, therefore God made it." The only evidence they're submitting is the empty space between their ears.
highwind8124 2 years ago 8
Since God has spoken in His Word, which is a light, we need to hear Him. Nobody just follows the facts, but we need guidance to understand the facts, and the God centered context of design for the universe. Faith breaks the barrier of ignorance, b/c it is based on the assurance of truth of God, which is eternal. Christ is God's Truth, & His Lordship over all things which He created hence we ought to repent of our rebeliion, and trust in His blood for the redemption of ourselves from death.
theologymattrz 2 years ago
"Faith breaks the barrier of ignorance"
Faith can lead you in any direction. Faith is like love; it is blind. And the blind lead the blind.
XiaoGui17 2 years ago
where does no faith lead? Ever ask that? You either believe Jesus and his message of love towards humanity was real or not. That's not blind. We have a set of guidelines there for us. Atheism has no guide we just go off into the world creating our own rules and people live their life by deciding what's right and wrong in their own mind and it's just guess work what comes out of it for the human individual. Either they're decent human beings or sick people. Atheism's no better I'm afraid it's ...
100pjp001 2 years ago
Flexibility and patience 100pjp001, i seek knowldage i dream of the stars, but even if in my life i cant get both i will live a good life and die with a smile looking at the generations to come.
AteoConPimienta 2 years ago
I know what your saying, we can't get answers like that crystal clear but that's what makes people intelligent, curiosity.
"i seek knowldage i dream of the stars, but even if in my life i cant get both i will live a good life and die with a smile looking at the generations to come."
good for you.
But it's concerning to see the behaviours of modern culture. I don't know if it's just my country the UK. But people seem to be less responsible and less committed everywhere I look.
100pjp001 2 years ago
"But it's concerning to see the behaviours of modern culture. I don't know if it's just my country the UK. But people seem to be less responsible and less committed everywhere I look."
And why is that if you bring it to the conversation...
AteoConPimienta 2 years ago 2
"And why is that if you bring it to the conversation... "
Drunk culture which increases by the year in a reckless way, fights in the street, sex in public places (where's their shame?). The moto behind that is "we only live once, get while you can" That's the essence of atheism.
Young girls getting pregnant that's on the increase, they also get pregnant deliberately to claim money nowadays.
Many more problems with people but hope I've given you an idea of how people are today.
100pjp001 2 years ago
Yea remember the old days when people where respectful due religion....
No wars, no rape, no murder, the church the most clean institution on the earth... every walked straight because the fear of hell and the wonderful carrot of heaven, oh what a wonderful days isnt it?
Please, get real...
AteoConPimienta 2 years ago 2
......those generations back then. What influence do you think that would have had on them?
They would be more encouraged to take people's lands, have all the women they want, live like reckless animals just focusing on one's happiness in whatever way they can like what I mentioned above before their time's up.
Don't give that BS to me like it was the fault of religion of those brutal times.
People just simply made the choice of not living by Christ's words that's why them things happened.
100pjp001 2 years ago
And....
Thats when you switch from a reasonable person to a fanatic. Read a history book and stop imaging "what happen in the past", just like you imagine your 2000 years dead god.
AteoConPimienta 2 years ago 4
Hence, materialism is an inconsistent, incoherent, false worlview, that denies the basis of science, and actually leads into futility and despair. Nobody can live consistently with their actual materialist/atheist philosophy of life, b/c as intelligent, moral, spiritual, human beings, our very nature is ANTI-materialistic. Atheists must suppress the truth of God's being as they co-opt a Christian worldview. This schizophrenia is evidence of their failed argument.
theologymattrz 2 years ago
"Hence, materialism is an inconsistent, incoherent, false worlview, that denies the basis of science, and actually leads into futility and despair."
Science is based on empiricism. Empiricism supports materialism.
"our very nature is ANTI-materialistic."
You're using equivocation when it comes to materialism. First you use it to mean "naturalism", then you use it to mean "consumerism". This really does seem to be your favorite logical fallacy.
XiaoGui17 2 years ago
...... just as blind I'm afraid. Atheism goes either way for people. People for instance in this country don't have much of a clue what's right or wrong. They just live, go out get drunk, get pregnant, be like the governments and get greedy.
If there's no one there to judge our acts then how do we influence people like our governments and bankers to change their ways if we all apparently live once.
If the them people decided to have a proper heart, that'd get in the way of their one life.
100pjp001 2 years ago
I'm sorry whatever does morality, ie:promoting compassion and minimizing suffering, have to do with believing in a supernatural being?
EntinludeX 2 years ago 3
"I'm sorry whatever does morality, ie:promoting compassion and minimizing suffering, have to do with believing in a supernatural being? "
If you say that "people" say we should live by them ways then people are not going to bother doing that eventually, were only good now because we have goodness still in us (just about).
Compassion towards others get in the way of those out there that are well off. Whereas if we were made aware for a fact that GOD told us we must abide by them laws to...
100pjp001 2 years ago
...be a part of his Kingdom also the reason why were put on this earth, then wouldn't people like the rich and powerful think twice before neglecting and treating people badly?
Can I ask you are you grateful for your life?
100pjp001 2 years ago
I'd like to see just one Boeing747 put itself together in 500 million years. Unfortunately when we put reality into the equation we tend to face a lot of holes.
anon540 2 years ago
Don't you get it? It has already been proven as possible. Don't you know what the boeing 747 stands for? It stands for a cell. What is a cell? One of the products of the long term evolution of a self-replicating system. Abiogenesis = the origin of the first self-replicating molecule. The self-assembly and evolution of self-replicating molecules has already been proven in a lab, what more do you want?
Shalek 2 years ago 2
Comparing a Boeing747 to a cell might work if a cell was nothing but Jello, but in real life it simply doesn't work.
In fact, anything comparable is beyond human technology. We're talking each individual cell being like an advanced air force base serving a huge number of other bases. Each of these computers has supercomputers beyond our technology. All of them put together support systems even more complicated.
Not to mention having the parts in the first place.
anon540 2 years ago
I repeat, abiogenesis isnt the origin of the first cell, it's the origin of the first self-replicating molecule the cell came until much later as a product of its evolution. Don't be dense. Maybe you'd want to watch the video again.
Shalek 2 years ago 3
when the parts of a 747 have the same natural properties as atoms and molecules, you'll get your wish. There is no natural process for self assembling planes. There IS a well known process for molecular bonding, it's called polymerization.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Maybe, but we're talking very tiny pieces of a comparatively huge system just accidentally falling together out of nothing. This could work with something like oxygen, theoretically, but oxygen is far from a living organism.
anon540 2 years ago
there's an excellent video about the polymerization of amino acids into replicating molecules on youtube. just do a search for it.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Not when you have trillions of trillions of all the needed components and more floating around, constantly on chemical reaction with one another. Due to the laws of physics we know that on that environment it was almost bound to happen. I'll go ahead and say that it not happening was more unlikely.
Shalek 2 years ago
Then you may as well be saying that all the other planets around us not having any life on them is even more unlikely. This is starting to sound like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. "With an improbability factor of 98,473,628,176,364.971. Thank you for visiting the planet Earth"
Anyway, we still have a problem. Cells are pretty big and extremely complicated. On top of that you simply cannot remove a piece, or simplify it in any way. It all has to be put together as one piece at one time.
anon540 2 years ago
'Then you may as well be saying that all the other planets around us not having any life on them is even more unlikely. '
How do you arrive at that? I was talking about an environment like that of the early earth, don't know if any other planet in the solar system has ever had conditions similar to those of the early earth.
Shalek 2 years ago
'Anyway, we still have a problem. Cells are pretty big and extremely complicated. On top of that you simply cannot remove a piece, or simplify it in any way. It all has to be put together as one piece at one time.'
Wrong. Irreducible complexity is a myth, you should know why this is by now. Example: The RNA molecule mentioned in the video is a 'cell' stripped off everything but its genetic code but it can still self-replicate, why is this? Because you are wrong.
Shalek 2 years ago
Hey Genius! Where did the DNA come from? Are you surmising that a primordial soup of non-living things spontaneously created a set of instructions for a cell? I-Dont-Think-So.
in4mayshun 2 years ago
This sort of comment tells me how ignorant some people are... RNA is, if you will, a simpler form of DNA. If you knew how this happened, because it could and it probably did you'd understand. Read the article. It has already been proven as possible, elements comming together to form self-replicating, evolving systems completely by their own on an environment very like the early earth.
Please abstain yourself from sarcastic comments before you aknowledge all of the facts.
Shalek 2 years ago
I could slam two piles of mashed potatoes together, but no matter how I go about it, even if I added peas into the mix, it would still be mashed potatoes and it wouldn't be a comprehendible language.
anon540 2 years ago
Potatoes..? Po-tat-oes..? Don't you know anything about atoms and molecules, about chemistry in general, about anything? Are you even closely aware to how monumentally stupid your statement was? Stop talking, just stop. Everything you say just further reveals how incredibly, mind numbingly, frustratingly and aggresively ignorant you are on the subject. It's bloody offensive. Please just stop.
Shalek 2 years ago
To keep it simple.. I couldn't think of a worse example at this time. Please, come up with a better one. RNA is completely irrelevant. Genetic code, on the other hand, is very relevant. Going that way would be too easy though. The Hamlet reference for example. I'm sure you're familiar with it.
anon540 2 years ago
RNA is genetic code silly.
Shalek 2 years ago
DNA is genetic code, RNA is just a group of protein equivalents used to convert the genetic information into something useful. this is done through ribosomes on the E.R.
MidgetPhilosopher 2 years ago
Wrong.
Shalek 2 years ago
Modern eukaryotes that you seem to think about probably work very differently compared to early cells. RNA can be used to store genetic information. This happens in RNA-viruses for example. RNA is thought to be a good candidate for the genetic code of the early cells because in addition to the cabability to store genetic information it can also achieve chemical catalysis. The active site of a ribosome for example is composed entirely of RNA.
cutepinkbandanaman 2 years ago
Stop feeding off creationist propaganda and do some actual, unbiased research into the subject before trying to argue against something you obviously know next to nothing about.
Shalek 2 years ago
I'm not feeding off any propaganda. To be honest, atheist propaganda is more prominent and less convenient. I'm not one to put blind faith in an unproven, and often disproved theory.
Evolution has been disproved time and time again, but it just adds a new theory. Kind of like adding more bloatware to Windows, a flawed system, every time it gets a virus.
Creationism on the other hand is easily disproved. The simple fact that it hasn't been is good enough for me.