I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

[_Nightlion]

I love him like he was Joseph Science Smith.

Someone has got to siggy that. I lol'd my ass off. Too cute, NL!

Yeah, my wife laughed when I told her and me a couple times when I thought about it on our road trip today.

[_Nightlion]

Science think proof of God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI

He has an authoritative and intelligent sound to his voice.
Unfortunately, the arguments are all old and bad.

Care to say more than just say so.

There is something serious to object to every thirty seconds or so.

Like?

It was particularly annoying when he talked about the question of why would bacterium or early life have "wanted" to reproduce itself when it couldn't have known it was going to die. This is utterly silly.

His point was that reproduction is purpose driven. From where did bacteria get a purpose?

Molecules and molecular systems that can most effectively reproduce based on their structure will eventually dominate a population as a matter of mathematical necessity. They don't need to "want" anything or be aware of anything. This guy cannot keep himself from anthropomorphizing matter.

He only "life-ing" that which has "life" as opposes to nonliving element.

He really doesn't understand evolution and cannot help thinking about everything on a fully human model of conscious purpose as if nothing complex could happen unless it was driven by a human-like purpose.

And MIT biologist does not understand evolution????? come on

Notice where he preaches our preexistence....cool.

By the way, even humans do not reproduce for the reason that they know they are going to die!

Thanks for speaking for all of us. Having children is a caution against the evident reality of old age and frailty and death. You know that.

His claim about closed universes is bogus also.

What about the Cambrian Explosion or big bang of every known phylum of life.
All life is single cell before and after everything is developed to having EYES already.

[_Nightlion]

I was a little skeptical the moment I noticed the yamaka on a guy who's supposed to be talking science, but thought, meh, no big deal. But I stopped the moment I heard him pronounce 'message' as 'massage.'

Too much.

His second word was "message" which he pronounced just fine. You fault him for an enunciation fumble citing the book "The Medium is the Message"??
You lasted just one minute. It runs for thirty minutes. Get a grip and give it a go.

[_Nightlion]

Here is another great thing consider: (no religion) so relax it's math.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315#docid=7864411138274330819

[_bcspace]

Haven't watched more than a couple of mins but I noticed an "As seen on marijuana.com". Just wondering how many hits will I need before will be able to harmonize this.

[_Some Schmo]

Time is too precious; life is too short.

Frankly, I'd rather spend the time reading you, NL. At least I'm highly entertained (I mean that sincerely).

[_honorentheos]

Hi Nightlion,

It may be interesting to break his argument down into one question - what is "will"?

It was interesting to me how frequently his argument seemed to hinge on his perception of what is "willed" when compared to his perception of "random". He seemed to apply this throughout to both biological as well as physical effects. I may be wrong, but I think this is also what Tarski was pointing out specifically regarding the professor's description of evolution.

For the sake of discussion, I'd be interested in how you would answer the question of what "will" might be, and how God's will could be decerned in a universe such as he envisions?

Also - just a comment: The more I listened to him, the more insightful I thought his initial comment about "fish not discovering water" really was - and he was exhibit "A" for how this very condition may be behind people seeing "God" where there is no other evidence for such a being. In a way, I think he was unintentionally arguing very strenuously against immortality. What I mean is, other than the current condition of existance that we enjoy (but when we are honest with ourselves have to recognize did not always enjoy based on our own personal experience. Unless you count fabricated inventions of a pre-existance that you have no recollection of nor can be verified by anyone who existed immediately before you did) there is no reason to believe that existance should continue past the interval between one's first and last breathes. Everywhere around us, our recognition of a thing's or person's identity ends and that thing becomes something else. The evidence is so overwhelming for the end of identity that it's almost like failing to see our current state of existance/identity like water would be to a fish. And yet, here he is arguing for existance like it was some permanent state while citing example after example of change in those states and their associated identities. His defense against this: it's willful change.

And this brings us back to the question, what is "will"?

[_Nightlion]

Hi Nightlion,

It may be interesting to break his argument down into one question - what is "will"?

Authorship.

Acts 17: 28
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

If not the will of God then he has no glory. If it is all brought to pass according to his will and it is indeed his will that gives mass which is the commanding order to all things he is to be worshiped as the Almighty God of the heavens and the earth.

Can you handle that"?

Or must your parquet elegance of upright aplomb human existence that glides ever demonstrably refined with glistening renown in commensurate degrees all well earned and richly deserved make loathsome any divine? In this crest of humanity's finest hour has wretched filth and pollution and putridity earned the just vengeance of a burning recompense of fire. What utter abomination that man refuses to honor the most High neither fearful of him nor filled with joy unspeakable at the knowledge of him.

Just when you think man is as good as he can be comes the reality that he is nothing, which thing he never has supposed.

[_Nightlion]

Time is too precious; life is too short.

Frankly, I'd rather spend the time reading you, NL. At least I'm highly entertained (I mean that sincerely).

How can you sincerely read me and NOT do what I say? You shall remained only half entertained.

[_honorentheos]

Hi Nightlion,

To clarify, what do you mean by authorship?