Evolution - Mind over Matter

[cookrealfood]

This guy is definitely wrong about one thing: Spontaneous generation is NOT a synonym for the big bang theory!!!!!!!!!!

[csnowutube]

False dichotomy. Creator, spontaneous generation, OR, something we don't know yet. Ignorance is not evidence for a god.

[WeHave2009]

Code is information from mind to mind. Dna is not a code.

[hellcielo]

@WeHave2009 this is a weak argument because DNA is information

a strong argument would be the information in the DNA does not need a mind becuase DNA evolve

[cookrealfood]

@WeHave2009 how is DNA not a code??

[Hufflewaffle]

Yes. Mind does INFER 'information' 'matter' etc.

What does 'infer' mean? It literally means to 'bring forth' so yes, the mind certainly does 'bring forth' information and matter. It brings it forth to our consciousness and experience - but so what??

The problem is the paradox that its literally impossible to imagine an empty universe without a mind imagining it. Clearly this has lead some people to believe some 'uber' mind is thinking it all up but - once again - there is NO evidence for this.

[WeAskThePeople]

what no one has considered is that this whole thing is an illusion , a gigantic computer simulation in energy. bible blinkered boobs. we are all god , exeperiencing our created reality.

[theELUSIV]

I actually came 2 the same conclusion myself yesterday after months of watching reading & trying 2 understand the different philosophies of a creationst & evolutionst.The only logical explanation i could come up with is GOD is the definition of the realm or dimension that concious thoughts & creative ideas exsist. If physics states there are infinite possibilities maybe the realm in which concious thoughts exsist is also the realm of that which cannot exsist in the physical universe. "GOD"

[cookrealfood]

@theELUSIV I agree. But that's dependent on the theory of infinite possibilities and that there is another realm... or dimension that is intelligent thought that we can perceive. (i mean it's possible the 'next' dimension beyond time is something we can't even conceive of). Additionally you are god in your world(if you have perfect mind body balance/control/insight), the collective consciousness of every being on earth creates the "god" of earth (etc...if we are not "alone") hope i made sense

[Adhurpad]

what a load of bull crap! Who says that information cannot be brought up without intelligence?

[EmbraceTheAbsurd]

i dont know wether to give a thumbs up to this vid because it shows how ignorant and assumptuous evangelicals are or to thumb it down because of the bogus, rediculous, and entirely fallacous syllogism that comprises the whole of niles argumant.

[neverfearchrisishere]

Got to love Allaboutscience's article on Intelligent design, paragraph 1 line 1, first half: 'Intelligent Design is obvious ' Congrats. That's an F mark.

'It's Obvious' is the system which brought about thousands of years of believing that the Earth was the center of the universe - Science has nothing to do with the 'Obvious' and everything to do with 'What is proven to be'

.

Moving beyond simply declaring things as obvious is what science is all about.

[Wolfje777]

evolution + ressurrection of Christ + science +theology +Self knowledge MINUS church bullshit = Christianity

[EmbraceTheAbsurd]

@Wolfje777 Science+Bible is impossible. Its either one or the other. Pick a side bro. Don't go switzerland on lifes biggest question. Unless, of course, you are intentionally creating an obviously errable equation to demonstrate the obvious errability of the Christian faith, in which case I would accept your comment as not retarded.

[Wolfje777]

@EmbraceTheAbsurd

retarded? i think that is not very nice, but i think i understand what u mean.

I investigated it and The Bible is indeed no science at all.

I just did not know

now I do:I see there is no proof at all.

so to say ressurrection is proven science, is indeed unfair to the truth.

But my form of Christianity is not based upon the bIble, but based upon a force of nature: the Self.

Read the Bhagavad Gita for more details upon the Self.

I found it online and I learned much thanx to it.

[cookrealfood]

@EmbraceTheAbsurd hahaha

[GLWillaims]

watch,dont fish and drive!

[criskity]

The kind of spontaneous generation disproved by Pasteur is completely different from abiogenesis. Big strawman.

[pieman2906]

@criskity I think he's more referring to the big bang there, since the current theory is that the big bang originated from nothing.

[cookrealfood]

@pieman2906 Yeah, he is referring to the big bang which is not actually what the theory of spontaneous generation refers to. But no, hardly any scientists believe the big bang originated from nothing, that is most likely a theory, as most things are. But it's not an accepted theory.

[Pokerislife7]

10 people are really mad at their atheist friend for even hinting that their is a God.

[JoshuaHults]

@Pokerislife7  hahahaha

[neverfearchrisishere]

@Pokerislife7 Who's the Atheist friend? The presenter is from allaboutscience, an evangelical Christian website.

[MagnesiumMichael]

Perhaps the theory of consciousness is much more mysterious at this time, and matter bringing forth mind in that regard, may very well be impossible.

However, at this stage in the game, there is very good evidence that life could form from matter billions of years ago. Yes spontaneous generation was disproved and is impossible in this current environment. But in a reducing atmosphere, the Urey-Miller and Sidney Fox experiments show abiogenesis is plausible.

[joygarner]

I love the way this guy lays it out. It makes perfect sense. ALL matter is merely "information", energy arranged according to that information. How could it find the arrangement of mind without the information? And then who/what provided the information?

[davemuscato]

There are so many things wrong scientifically with what this guy is saying, which blow apart his logic, that I don't even know where to start. Sorry I don't have more to say. I just have to shake my head... I have better things to do with my time.

[AEVautomatic]

the universe is so big its huge. there is probably a 747 spontaniously generating somewhere right now.

[biblebeliever01]

what about the quotes was george wald wrong scientifically wrong too?he was blown away too and if youre honest with yourself and study foryourself instead of following an atheists research youll see

[davemuscato]

I've done a lot of research myself, I'd bet good money much more than you have. Yes, George Wald, whoever he is, was wrong when he said that the mind is the matrix upon which matter is built, or whatever the quote was. This is something that "occurred to" him, and you'll note that the quote also said it "might" have come about this way. As far as I know, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the hypothesis that mind precedes matter (and plenty of evidence the other way, by the way).

[davemuscato]

Just listened to the video again; he said (from the quotation) that's he's operating under the *assumption* that "mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality..." I don't know of any evidence for this at all. If you care to present some, I'm all ears, but until then, we should avoid making such outlandish assumptions when all the evidence points the other way.

[conradleviston]

George Wald was an interesting man, with a lot to say, particulatrly about the Vietnam War and Nuclear weapons, where he took a pro-peace view.

As for his quotes on evolution, I am quite fond of "Man is a product of editing, not authorship". I don't think he'd have approved of your analysis of information theory. He understood the ability of natural selection to filter good information from bad.

[gohoggyourself]

So straw man arguments are now called excellent videos?

[HomoTriSapien]

This ain't sience, this is mysticism

The need for a gorilla, that keeps peace and punnishes the bad ones, is also an instinct.

So, believing in a god is a proove of our nature.

btw, Never thought that the bible, with the story of a halfgod being layed in a temple ... , might come from story-leftovers of the egyptian sungods 2000 before?

Better be your own architect, i say.

AND oc stay nice to eachother!

peace,

me (tested higher consciousness)

[HomoTriSapien]

@ If i reverse it, it sounds as ridiculous as the original:

"mind never brought matter,

so matter must have brought mind"

oc, For believers all this ain't nescecary, cause they already believe that mind brought matter.

So, why all this talking, if it only simply comes to: "Believe that mind brought matter!!!"?

examples:

- my car never drove with me, so i must have driven with my car. (it works!)

- a virgin never had sex with everybody else, so everybody else must have had .. (nah)

[monkeybird69]

i think alot of the people commenting on this have lost the point... its kinda like that old buddhist calming technique... "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" if we werent here to ponder existance, would there be an existance?

[somecomputergeek]

"spontaneous generation" is the idea that fully-formed life can just pop into existence somehow. THIS idea has been disproven, but it is a gross straw man when dealing with ABIOGENESIS, which is NOT "spontaneous generation", but a gradual process that starts with self-replicating molecules. This has NOT been disproven. Please watch this:

watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

[biggbaddjohn]

that old potholer vid is ez to refute. there is no such thing as a "simple cell". show me one.

There is a scientific LAW, as i mentioned earlier called the law of biogenesis. it was actually published the same year as "origin of species". It says life only comes from life, it never comes from non-life. It is a law and therefore has never been refuted

[somecomputergeek]

There are no examples of a simple cell in existence right now. It is a theory that is in it's infancy. However, simply saying that there is no simple cell now doesn't mean that they never existed, and that is NOT a refutation.

Obviously, since life is here, either life always existed or life at some point came from non-life. Either way, it is impossible to prove. However, we know life was much simpler in the past. To extrapolate an abiogenic origin based on that is simple pattern recognition.

[RationalJunkie]

fail

[lilchrizz123]

You like to assert a lot of things and not back them up, can you explain why it's a fail?

[TheEdge012]

Fiv'd and favorited as usual Randall. I've been gone a while and am playing catch up. Sorry its been so long.

[djgreene1003]

Great video thanks Randall, God Bless

[therealtony]

C.S. Lewis accepted evolution.

[biggbaddjohn]

so ???

[lilchrizz123]

Great video Randall.

[brutus149]

The spontaneous generation of flies out of old meat has been disproven.

Spontaneous Generation of the building blocks of life has not been disproven.

[biggbaddjohn]

a stack of bricks does not a college campus make. that is exactly what you are claiming, because the cell is at least as complicated as a college campus.

[brutus149]

Rome wasn't built in a day...

[somecomputergeek]

There are two kinds of information: qualitative or quantitative.

Mutation and other random processes produces quantitative information.

Natural selection produces qualitative information.

Matter DOES bring forth consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon based on synaptic connections in the brain, and this can be PROVEN by altering your consciousness through drugs or brain damage.

[havock89]

And the fact that the mind can influence body? All it means is that they are functionally interdependent, not that one must be an emergent property from another.

A man can design a life support suit, that will keep him a live in a vacumn, if that suit fails while in use that does not mean that the man was an emergent property of the suit.

[somecomputergeek]

Of course not. You are insisting on a dualism where none exists. Even your analogy assumes that the mind/body relationship is analogous to a human/tool relationship.

Tell me, where does the mind end and the brain begin? How do they communicate with each other?

[havock89]

And that is why it is an analogy. The soul and body relationship is as etherial as the spirit body relationship. What makes life "want" to live? Unliving matter does not have any desire to live. Answer me where that comes from?

If the greatest philosophers cant answer these questions, how do you expect me to? Antother atheist rubber ruler instance?

You would insist that the dualism does not exist, yet the greatest minds, agree otherwise.

[somecomputergeek]

"Wanting" or desire is based on LIVING matter because living matter has nervous systems. Would you describe a plant as "wanting" anything? You're "point" refutes itself. If dualism was correct, inanimate objects may have desire, because you are saying that desire is separate from physical reality. There is no PHYSICAL mechanism for desire to take place in an inanimate object, but a "spiritual" mechanism? Hey, as long as we don't have to worry about REALITY, anything is possible.

[biggbaddjohn]

Information never arises from matter. That is a scienntific law . just like the law of biogenesis.

Mutation does not produce information, it only scrambles or destroys what is already there.

Again, Natural selection produces nothing, it selects from what is already there.

Name one "random process", no such thing

I can alter my car's performance by putting water in the tank, but does that prove that there is no driver ???

[somecomputergeek]

Natural selection doesn't produce anything, you're correct. But one "random process" is mutation. Mutation produces new information, in the form of quantitative information, or noise. YOU have about 100 mutations, like all human beings. Those mutations are new information. Natural selection takes that quantitative information and makes it qualitative, by filtering out the noise that doesn't help the organism.

[havock89]

You have no idea how many mutations have taken place, and neither does science. That number is PURE fantasy. Your making a determinism about evolution you cant substantiate.

[somecomputergeek]

"You have no idea how many mutations have taken place"

So what? We know that mutations DO take place, and we know that natural selection filters out genetic material. 

As far as the specific number 100 in our genome, it is an over-simplification, but is not arbitrary: wikipedia. org/wiki/Mutation_rate

What, exactly, are you claiming is unsubstantiated?

[biggbaddjohn]

If the human genome is a result of millions of years of mutation, how is it possible for you to determine how many mutations are in that information ??? If you can tell the difference, mutations are demonstrated not to be the mechanism that increases information in the genome.

This is a losing argument for you, Sir

watch?v=wDuwTPaHFM8

[somecomputergeek]

"how is it possible for you to determine how many mutations are in that information ?"

First, define "information", please. Each zygote has a certain number of mutations at birth, and through the life of the organism, several other mutations arise.

The exact number of mutations needed to get from single celled organisms to us is far less than the number of mutations we can estimate actually occurred. That is why natural selection is needed.

talkorigins. org/indexcc/CB/CB102. html

[biggbaddjohn]

DNA code contains statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics... all 5 levels of information. it is indeed information !!!

"Information is Information, neither matter or energy"-Norbert Wiener

[somecomputergeek]

Nobody is saying that it isn't information. At least I'm not. I'm guessing you were trying to define information like I requested. However, giving an example is not a definition. I would define information as the media that is stored in any medium.

[biggbaddjohn]

mutations damage genetic information. sometimes we get a mutation of limited benefit (eyeless cave fish, wingless beetles that live in a coastal area). but mutations only destroy genetic information. frame shifts, point mutations, what ever, all destroy genetic information.

not only that, excessive mutations result in future generations reverting back to "wild type"

[somecomputergeek]

Mutations don't "damage" genetic information, they ALTER it. It may be damage OR beneficial, but the vast majority of the time is is neither - simply neutral noise that does practically nothing to the organism. In some environments, "damage" doesn't hurt, such as "damage" to a fishes' eyes in a pitch black cave.

These are not inherently destructive. Natural selection determines what is destructive or beneficial, not YOU.

[havock89]

Duh! I never said that I determine anything. Its easy to win the argument when you make up stuff as you go along, huh?

[somecomputergeek]

You just said that they were ALL damage. THAT is a quality judgment. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. It's actually very simple.

[havock89]

I said "It may be damage OR beneficial, but the vast majority of the time is is neither - simply neutral noise that does practically nothing to the organism."

You strawmaned my point.

[somecomputergeek]

havock, you didn't say that. I said that. Go back and read it.

I think I understand the confusion, though. I responded to biggbaddjohn, who DID say that mutations only cause damage. I corrected him, and you responded to me thinking that I was correcting you. I then responded back thinking it was the same conversation.

[havock89]

ok. I have a headache now.. Going to sit in a dark room.. bye bye.

[biggbaddjohn]

Word !!!

[biggbaddjohn]

all mutations damage genetic informtion, period. it one way or another, all mutatons are based on altered genetic information that is already there

[somecomputergeek]

"damage" is a qualitative judgment. Damage based on what? Some hypothetically perfect organism? Perfect for what?

The only qualifier is that the organism passes on it's genes. YOU don't get to make that judgment. Natural selection does.