The Genesis Conflict - 101 - The Earth in Time and Space

[Photonic]

Starting from 6:30 I do feel like I'm being insulted by the premise of uniform distribution of matter due to expansion.

He does not take gravity, high energy collisions, or any massive number of other possibilities into account when explaining this.

Not to mention 3-space was a non-thing prior to the expansion period.

 

[MarcATL]

I tried watching the video, but the guy was insulting my intelligence before he even got started. The guy is a zoologist, not an astrophysicist.

What, exactly, insulted your intelligence.

He's a world renowned scientist and professor. And your credentials are...?

Considering I'm an actual astrophysicist and a cosmologist, I'll watch the movie and give you my opinion in a bit.

But reason does not require credentials.

Reserving opinion until I finish.

Exactly, that's why those other two fellas were stalling, trying to throw a monkey wrench into the thread.

I didn't let them get away with it.

I look forward to your full analysis of it brother.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Wait a minute hear, I am one of those religious nuts, and I am demanding integrity by insisting that, if you want to mention the guy is a world renowned scientist, you prove that he is world renowned, and point out exactly what his credentials are.

Then you're not all that nutty.

It is true that solid reasoning does not need any credentials. But you shouldn't be shouting about his credentials as being qualified to discuss the topic, then get all hurt and start backpedaling when someone calls you on it. His credentials are crap, so why did you bring them up at all? Why does the video? Answer: to be misleading.

 

[Montrovant]

Wait a minute hear, I am one of those religious nuts, and I am demanding integrity by insisting that, if you want to mention the guy is a world renowned scientist, you prove that he is world renowned, and point out exactly what his credentials are.

Then you're not all that nutty.

It is true that solid reasoning does not need any credentials. But you shouldn't be shouting about his credentials as being qualified to discuss the topic, then get all hurt and start backpedaling when someone calls you on it. His credentials are crap, so why did you bring them up at all? Why does the video? Answer: to be misleading.

^^^ This.

Also, while reason doesn't require credentials, I think a lot of people might want some before spending 2 hours watching some youtube video.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wait a minute hear, I am one of those religious nuts, and I am demanding integrity by insisting that, if you want to mention the guy is a world renowned scientist, you prove that he is world renowned, and point out exactly what his credentials are.

Then you're not all that nutty.

It is true that solid reasoning does not need any credentials. But you shouldn't be shouting about his credentials as being qualified to discuss the topic, then get all hurt and start backpedaling when someone calls you on it. His credentials are crap, so why did you bring them up at all? Why does the video? Answer: to be misleading.

I am going to assume you are not talking to me when you mention his credentials, mostly because I agree that the only reason to call him a world renowned scientist is to obfuscate the fact that he does not know what he is talking about.

 

[Photonic]

I was very busy today so I was not able to completely the last half of the video, I will continue later tonight or tomorrow morning.

 

[LOki]

A thread especially for athiests on USMB. In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Presented by a renowned scientist in scientific language. I've watched this video at least 3 times now. Powerful stuff.

I'm going to admit right now I'm just at the beginning of this vid--but I'll predict right now that the only thing "powerful" about it, is going to be it's dumb. It's powerfully insistent and impenetrable denial of valid logic and evidentiary fact.

This guy begins with a complaint about how only those explanations founded upon verifiable evidence and valid logic are presented in schools; then he proposes to right this "wrong" by presenting superstition as a rationally valid alternative source of explanations to choose from.

Seriously powerful dumb.

EDIT:
About 15 minutes in he's got his problem with the clumpy distribution of matter and conservation of angular momentum ... like nothing in science describes how some systems clump up and rotate in one direction while others rotate in other directions.

I don't care how incomplete a scientific theory might be, it is still better than the absolute certainties derived from faith in superstitions.

Still watching, and hoping my predictions won't be true.

 

[Volatire]

And for the record, because I'm respecter of definitions and being on the same page, when I use "athiests" I mean those of us who do NOT believe in the existence of a God and those who mock those that do and those that attempt to debunk Christianity. I'm not saying that all are like those 3, however those are the characteristics of many of the atheists I'm aware of.

Any of the above is who I'm referring to in this thread.

Any one with a different definition, please describe it and present your case.

Wow, thanks for making me sound like an asshole. Don't say something about a group when you don't know anything about it. All the atheists I know, including myself, do NOT actively mock people who believe in God and we do NOT attempt to debunk Christianity. We can accept that PEOPLE THINK DIFFERENTLY. Fine, stick with your definition, but don't say that it's most atheists. I highly doubt it is
Sorry for getting a bit off topic.

 

[FurthurBB]

Uhm hmmm...that's very nice Quantum. Again, he's a world renowned scientist and Professor. And YOUR credential are...?

and yet again, any non-hick would ask: what credentials does a self-proclaimed "world renowned" physiologist have to discuss complex astrophysics concepts?

Perhaps we can go to a world renowned lawyer and ask him to cure cancer? Or maybe we can just watch the show The Big Bang Theory to learn about the concept from their world renowned actors?

This will always come back to religious nuts being clueless when it comes to integrity of intellectual discussion. You see here in the real world, aka reality, people who are educated and trained in a topic are the ones best suited to further study it and then draw appropriate conclusions. Back in your fanatical world called religion, the goal is to get anyone with a PhD, even if it's in a completely unrelated field, and pass them off as knowledgeable. This is at the heart of "religious science."

True, like trotting out economists who don't agree with evolution and acting like it means something. I would venture to say that those economists know no more about evolution than a server in a restaurant.

 

[LOki]

A thread especially for athiests on USMB. In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Presented by a renowned scientist in scientific language. I've watched this video at least 3 times now. Powerful stuff.

I'm going to admit right now I'm just at the beginning of this vid--but I'll predict right now that the only thing "powerful" about it, is going to be it's dumb. It's powerfully insistent and impenetrable denial of valid logic and evidentiary fact.

This guy begins with a complaint about how only those explanations founded upon verifiable evidence and valid logic are presented in schools; then he proposes to right this "wrong" by presenting superstition as a rationally valid alternative source of explanations to choose from.

Seriously powerful dumb.

EDIT 10/17/2011:
About 15 minutes in he's got his problem with the clumpy distribution of matter and conservation of angular momentum ... like nothing in science describes how some systems clump up and rotate in one direction while others rotate in other directions.

I don't care how incomplete a scientific theory might be, it is still better than the absolute certainties derived from faith in superstitions.

Still watching, and hoping my predictions won't be true.

EDIT 10/19/2011:
About 30 minutes in he expresses his problem with the accuracy of radioactive dating; and the way he goes about asserting that the "clock" involved is "totally useless" is the means by which one establishes that ANY particular clock by itself is "totally useless" in determining the age of anything under any circumstances where no other confirming references are available.

Although an accurate overview of the process by which radioactive decay can offer information regarding elapsed time, this disingenuous douche completely misrepresents the method (in which radioactive decay provides only some data) by which the age objects (or whatever) are determined, and the accuracy that is claimed when such methods are implemented.

I mean HOLY FUCK wHAT A DISINGENUOUS DOUCHE! As he prattles himself into The Theory of General Relativity--hoping to cash in on the emotional code word "relative" that cues the faithful to guard their "absolute" faith from reason--this superstitious retard claims that dating methods based on verifiable evidence produce any and every conclusion. He literally claims the scientific method of dating objects produces an elapsed time "Relative to my [your] paradigm. Relative to my [your] way of thinking."

Then, somewhere about 40 minutes in to this retarded circus of his, he gets into the geological record of the Grand Canyon, cites a world average rate of erosion to a local phenomenon and claims that the observations and conclusions made by geologists are flatly invalid.

What an asshat.

So now that I'm about 1/2 way through this, and it's proving to be utter bullshit ... outside of the value of mocking this idiot and the farcical foundations of his beliefs, is there any redeeming value in continuing to watch this powerfully stupid thing?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

so the conclusion? religious nutjobs use underhanded methods, misinformation, and misdirection to achieve their goals of discrediting reputable reproducible scientific evidence.

 

[uscitizen]

Now this guy is world renowned!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ISe0fdoaPs]Zamfir Pan Flute Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

 

[uscitizen]

Or this guy?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fMgOweRuwg]Budweiser - Songs of the Ferret - YouTube[/ame]

 

[MarcATL]

A thread especially for athiests on USMB. In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Presented by a renowned scientist in scientific language. I've watched this video at least 3 times now. Powerful stuff.

I'm going to admit right now I'm just at the beginning of this vid--but I'll predict right now that the only thing "powerful" about it, is going to be it's dumb. It's powerfully insistent and impenetrable denial of valid logic and evidentiary fact.

This guy begins with a complaint about how only those explanations founded upon verifiable evidence and valid logic are presented in schools; then he proposes to right this "wrong" by presenting superstition as a rationally valid alternative source of explanations to choose from.

Seriously powerful dumb.

EDIT:
About 15 minutes in he's got his problem with the clumpy distribution of matter and conservation of angular momentum ... like nothing in science describes how some systems clump up and rotate in one direction while others rotate in other directions.

I don't care how incomplete a scientific theory might be, it is still better than the absolute certainties derived from faith in superstitions.

Still watching, and hoping my predictions won't be true.

Sounds like faith to me.

 

[MarcATL]

A thread especially for athiests on USMB. In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Presented by a renowned scientist in scientific language. I've watched this video at least 3 times now. Powerful stuff.

I'm going to admit right now I'm just at the beginning of this vid--but I'll predict right now that the only thing "powerful" about it, is going to be it's dumb. It's powerfully insistent and impenetrable denial of valid logic and evidentiary fact.

This guy begins with a complaint about how only those explanations founded upon verifiable evidence and valid logic are presented in schools; then he proposes to right this "wrong" by presenting superstition as a rationally valid alternative source of explanations to choose from.

Seriously powerful dumb.

EDIT 10/17/2011:
About 15 minutes in he's got his problem with the clumpy distribution of matter and conservation of angular momentum ... like nothing in science describes how some systems clump up and rotate in one direction while others rotate in other directions.

I don't care how incomplete a scientific theory might be, it is still better than the absolute certainties derived from faith in superstitions.

Still watching, and hoping my predictions won't be true.

EDIT 10/19/2011:
About 30 minutes in he expresses his problem with the accuracy of radioactive dating; and the way he goes about asserting that the "clock" involved is "totally useless" is the means by which one establishes that ANY particular clock by itself is "totally useless" in determining the age of anything under any circumstances where no other confirming references are available.

Although an accurate overview of the process by which radioactive decay can offer information regarding elapsed time, this disingenuous douche completely misrepresents the method (in which radioactive decay provides only some data) by which the age objects (or whatever) are determined, and the accuracy that is claimed when such methods are implemented.

I mean HOLY FUCK wHAT A DISINGENUOUS DOUCHE! As he prattles himself into The Theory of General Relativity--hoping to cash in on the emotional code word "relative" that cues the faithful to guard their "absolute" faith from reason--this superstitious retard claims that dating methods based on verifiable evidence produce any and every conclusion. He literally claims the scientific method of dating objects produces an elapsed time "Relative to my [your] paradigm. Relative to my [your] way of thinking."

Then, somewhere about 40 minutes in to this retarded circus of his, he gets into the geological record of the Grand Canyon, cites a world average rate of erosion to a local phenomenon and claims that the observations and conclusions made by geologists are flatly invalid.

What an asshat.

So now that I'm about 1/2 way through this, and it's proving to be utter bullshit ... outside of the value of mocking this idiot and the farcical foundations of his beliefs, is there any redeeming value in continuing to watch this powerfully stupid thing?

Well...at least you gave it an honest shot.

And for that...I thank you.

Peace.

 

[Photonic]

Well...at least you gave it an honest shot.

And for that...I thank you.

Peace.

Re-posting my partial review, it's not done yet but I haven't had much time lately.

Angular momentum can still be conserved in the big bang, this point made by him makes mention of a rotating singularity that consitutes the earliest moment of the planck epoch (Planck epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
By extrapolating from Hawkings & Susskind's assessments of quantum singularity properties, given that the universe at 0-time was a proper quantum singularity (what allows this to be constituted as a singularity is in fact the same properties we assign a black hole are accounted for in the properties of the early universe) there are two theories that can be worked from this.
(Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The first is that there is no frame of reference, so conservation of angular moment isn't possible because it simply cannot be applied. The second and equally plasuable explaination is that the early universe was rotating from 0-time during the planck epoch which is a very clear possibility of a singularity, especially one like this. The second is more consistent with a multiverse theory of reality, given that the singularity formed was an event in a "parent" universe.

Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.

My assessment of his knowledge of gravity is that he lacks the basic understanding to make assertions about the coelescing of the early hydrogen gas in the universe under gravitational influences in sufficient quantities to ignite stars. He argues that this is unlikely but we know today that gravity has no limits on it's capability to interact from a long distance. We are being affected by gravity from other galaxies and just because it is not noticable to us personally it's quite observable. A quick glance at the galactic clusters that permeate our universe leave us with little option but to accept this simple notion.
For those who are mathematically inclined I am including the equations that will allow you to calculate the gravitationally binding energy of a system. (Gravitational binding energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I am going to pause at this point in the assessment of this video to say he seems to favor an incredibly simplified and almost derisive inclination to state evolution as bluntly and unfavorably as possible while still attempting to maintain neutrality. I do not find this becoming of someone claiming to be attempting to give people the facts and allowing them to decide themselves. Anyways, onward.

On the subject of radiometric dating, he fails to mention that more than a single "clock" is used in a sample for dating in billions of years. Uranium-235 and Lead-206. (Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
He mentions non-chrystalized igneous rock is undatable, but he also fails to mention that once it crystalizes it is easily dated almost to the moment. This is due to the inability to obtain a sufficient amount of crystalized (formed atomic structures) isotopes in the material.
His sand analogy doesn't really apply given the instruments used to measure. This is why there is a variable answer given to every dating. (Example: between 250-265,000 years) This is because samples used to date are taken from different geologic areas that are within a given distance and can provide accurate results.

His reference to relativity is unimagintive and lacking and INCREDIBLY insulting. He goes so far as to say it didn't need mentioning. This is not the attitude of someone who is attempting to give people equal footing in both to determine what is true.
Because he made no rational arguments against relativity, and simply relegated it to non-application which, in the context of his own argument, is impossible to do. He proceeds to do it anyways.

At this point in the movie he goes into evolution, which is not my speciality. I am educated on the topic but my opinions are not that of an evolutionary biologist but as someone well versed in evolution.

He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.


Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.



At the end of this film I get very heavy impression he is simply pandering to a Christian crowd with pseudoscientific evidence. I don't appreciate his obvious derision of science in general.

Issues with some "world-wide" flood; there is 3 times less than the required volume of water on Earth to produce such a flood, given that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. This would mean, in no uncertain terms, that there would be a shell of water with the bottom 2/3 volume MISSING! Empty air!
His little flatness theory is interesting, completely explainable by simply saying that sediments act similarly in air as well.

This poses a number of issues mathematically but I will stop there so I can continue watching.

 

[MarcATL]

You've taking this rather seriously Photonic. I'm impressed.

 

[Photonic]

You've taking this rather seriously Photonic. I'm impressed.

Idiots spreading misinformation about physics is a pet peeve of mine.

 

[LOki]

A thread especially for athiests on USMB. In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Presented by a renowned scientist in scientific language. I've watched this video at least 3 times now. Powerful stuff.

I'm going to admit right now I'm just at the beginning of this vid--but I'll predict right now that the only thing "powerful" about it, is going to be it's dumb. It's powerfully insistent and impenetrable denial of valid logic and evidentiary fact.

This guy begins with a complaint about how only those explanations founded upon verifiable evidence and valid logic are presented in schools; then he proposes to right this "wrong" by presenting superstition as a rationally valid alternative source of explanations to choose from.

Seriously powerful dumb.

EDIT:
About 15 minutes in he's got his problem with the clumpy distribution of matter and conservation of angular momentum ... like nothing in science describes how some systems clump up and rotate in one direction while others rotate in other directions.

I don't care how incomplete a scientific theory might be, it is still better than the absolute certainties derived from faith in superstitions.

Still watching, and hoping my predictions won't be true.

Sounds like faith to me.

Can't be.

Faith is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; and is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Scientific theory--even incomplete scientific theory--having its foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, is still better than the absolute certainties derived from faith in superstitions.

 

[LOki]

A thread especially for athiests on USMB. In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Presented by a renowned scientist in scientific language. I've watched this video at least 3 times now. Powerful stuff.

I'm going to admit right now I'm just at the beginning of this vid--but I'll predict right now that the only thing "powerful" about it, is going to be it's dumb. It's powerfully insistent and impenetrable denial of valid logic and evidentiary fact.

This guy begins with a complaint about how only those explanations founded upon verifiable evidence and valid logic are presented in schools; then he proposes to right this "wrong" by presenting superstition as a rationally valid alternative source of explanations to choose from.

Seriously powerful dumb.

EDIT 10/17/2011:
About 15 minutes in he's got his problem with the clumpy distribution of matter and conservation of angular momentum ... like nothing in science describes how some systems clump up and rotate in one direction while others rotate in other directions.

I don't care how incomplete a scientific theory might be, it is still better than the absolute certainties derived from faith in superstitions.

Still watching, and hoping my predictions won't be true.

EDIT 10/19/2011:
About 30 minutes in he expresses his problem with the accuracy of radioactive dating; and the way he goes about asserting that the "clock" involved is "totally useless" is the means by which one establishes that ANY particular clock by itself is "totally useless" in determining the age of anything under any circumstances where no other confirming references are available.

Although an accurate overview of the process by which radioactive decay can offer information regarding elapsed time, this disingenuous douche completely misrepresents the method (in which radioactive decay provides only some data) by which the age objects (or whatever) are determined, and the accuracy that is claimed when such methods are implemented.

I mean HOLY FUCK wHAT A DISINGENUOUS DOUCHE! As he prattles himself into The Theory of General Relativity--hoping to cash in on the emotional code word "relative" that cues the faithful to guard their "absolute" faith from reason--this superstitious retard claims that dating methods based on verifiable evidence produce any and every conclusion. He literally claims the scientific method of dating objects produces an elapsed time "Relative to my [your] paradigm. Relative to my [your] way of thinking."

Then, somewhere about 40 minutes in to this retarded circus of his, he gets into the geological record of the Grand Canyon, cites a world average rate of erosion to a local phenomenon and claims that the observations and conclusions made by geologists are flatly invalid.

What an asshat.

So now that I'm about 1/2 way through this, and it's proving to be utter bullshit ... outside of the value of mocking this idiot and the farcical foundations of his beliefs, is there any redeeming value in continuing to watch this powerfully stupid thing?

I'm 70 minutes into this thing, Veith has spent the last half hour continuing his evidentiary cherry picking expedition that highlights misrepresentations of scientific assertions and evidence of local catastrophic erosion and sediment deposition; while disingenuously ignoring entirely the localized nature of such catastrophes (and resultant tectonic uplift) as well as the evidence that gradual deposition AND gradual erosion (which happen together), gradual tectonic subduction is the prevalent norm.

At this point it is pretty clear that Veith has some kind of problem with presenting a factually valid and intellectually honest presentation of what he says "science teaches us." So unless he becomes much bolder in his dishonest misrepresentations of what the scientific community actually asserts, I'll save further commentary for the fairy tale he must be planning to present as the valid alternative.