we come to one of my favorite videos. Based on the book " Evolution Deceit - The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism and Its Ideological Background "by Harun Yahya is here on a scientific basis for the existence of God, the accuracy of the Genesis and the inaccuracy of Darwin's theory of evolution, first described in" The Origin of Species it " be occupied.
Interestingly, such videos on Youtube mainly Islamic . In contrast to Christianity, there seems a need to bring a proof of God, very high. Also, there seems to be religion-specific, recognizing the big bang (there are places in the Koran, which he described in some detail) and the tendency to reject the theory of evolution is, on average. In some discussions, videos and comments I quickly realized that the reason - along with a comparison to the Christians of strong deference God on - is in most cases to a defective and incomplete understanding of the mechanisms of evolution . But more on that later, first part 1 of 6 of the targeted video which is then analyzed minute by minute.
THE DECLINE OF THE EVOLUTION THEORY and THE TRUTH OF CREATION [Part 1 / 6]
first Part One: The Origin of Life
01:20 " Everyone is part of the universe plan, carefully conceived and in harmonious balance with the whole "
Even with one of the first sentences ever tries to steer the opinion of the viewer in a certain direction . Here we have it again, the list of galaxies and stars and the incredibly complex interplay of all the particles in the universe - from which must mean that there has been an intelligent creator who created the universe so flat fully thought through, that everything is as we . see That there is no causal link is elegantly swept under the carpet and the most faithful Spectators are the patterns of thought "Terrible complex and not fully explained -> God was" obviously pleased.
is given that the universe is not in a state of equilibrium . There was to be almost in equilibrium state, shortly after the Big Bang. The temperature and density was so high that no matter how we know it could exist even individual atoms or even protons and neutrons. Since there was no matter, could throw the shadows, and the resulting subatomic particles immediately in the merger with corresponding antiparticle with the release of energy each other again extinguished, there was only light and absolutely even Porridge made of energy. It's been a balance. Had it existed until today, there would remain no matter, we would not exist, the earth was not there, not even the sun or the individual hydrogen atoms in interstellar space, which make it different from a vacuum, there would. Why do they do it anyway?
Because there was in this same period shortly after the Big Bang asymmetries. While five billion matter particles dissolved immediately with their antimatter to power no matter particles found an Annihilator, no partner with which it was annihilated to energy. Which ultimately formed the basis for all, now existing matter.
prevails today, the asymmetry - Because of information asymmetry is . The previously described Energiebrei at the beginning of the universe contained in this proposal is even a particle with five billion other, no information. Everything was the same. If one could exist in such a universe, one would be able to learn anything about it. One could not determine its position, even if one moves or not. Finally, it is a look in any direction the same. Such a universe would be balanced and in equilibrium. Asymmetry is all that different from the environment and thus information. Whether they are stars, galaxies, the background radiation or humans. So we hold - the universe is not in balance. "Can
life." 02:20
... which is not naturally found. I'm curious to see what the next few years to do with telescopes in terms of increasing Exoplanetenforschung . Even today, the number of detected planets orbiting other stars, in the direction of the thousand and more recently it has been possible to learn amazing details about a planet (HD209458b), the mighty 150 light years away from us. That is about 1,419,105,808,800 miles or 3,734,488 times the distance to the moon. This distance could be seen with special procedures that the planet has about 60% of the mass of Jupiter, orbits its star in just 3.5 days and that there are raging storms with up to 10,000 mph. In the coming years, and more accurate measurement, even for small rocky planets like Earth are expected.
03:00 " Temperature, orbit and surface of the Earth point out that this planet was designed to accommodate life "
It is true that the earth in a narrow range between "too cold" and "too hot "to turn the sun. If it were closer to the sun, it would evaporate the water and most living things could not exist. This cozy, warm conditions are actually expected in the future, and that is when the sun has merged its hydrogen into helium supply completely and begins to inflate. If we were a little farther from the sun, our water would be frozen and life is very unlikely if not impossible.
Why are we allowing so calculated in this thin area of life? Coincidence? God? In my opinion, this reasoning is wrong . We push closer to the Earth during its formation a piece of the sun, we let the water evaporate and the surface temperature dramatically . Rise Then we would have an Earth on which life would never have arisen. And consequently no people who wonder why they just in this narrow, live life for optimum range. Logic recognized?
03:16 " millions of different species of plants and animals living on the planet in perfect harmony "
How is harmony defined? The man who is nunmal an animal and one of these millions of different species seems at first sight at any rate not very harmonious. Where words like "good", "bad" or "harmonious" man-made anyway scores actually non-judgmental things and operations are . Example: I live only two people in a massive, cut off from the outside area. One has water and food and share it does not, the other has nothing. Only through the evaluation of people with empty hands of other "selfish" or "evil." Now bring the arms to the man dying of thirst exposed to the other and takes his food in itself. He has a guilty conscience because he would otherwise have died. And no one else is there. Who evaluates this action? As long as no one makes a score, things and events are neutral.
" This balance is set up so resistant, that without the Human intervention, would remain forever "
a) The person has a farm, why should he be excluded? b) speculation without a single clue
03:35 " If you look at the living creatures on Earth, we see a clear plan. All are equipped with extremely complex systems that enable them to perform their tasks optimally. Since life is planned and designed well-ordered, there must be a Creator . "
gradually ascended guns are hard and with putative causal relationships only so thrown around. The only scientifically valid plan, currently living and explains fossil species, is still the theory of evolution. This will continue until they can be refuted. What has not been possible before.
The next step is the suggestion that every living being would have to fulfill certain tasks. Here is a higher power, which distributes these tasks already implied and even in the next sentence with "Since life was designed to reach full ..." supposedly proves. However us the author is guilty proof that life was actually designed to plan.
Man does not come from monkeys, apes and humans have only one common Ancestor about 7 million years ago is now
's like very thick ... Beware of hidden valuations;)
04:35 "In the 19th Century has developed a theory that this obvious fact [Note: none was proved nothing, so far there is no fact] the creation denied. The theory claims that living things on Earth were not created by God but created in a process of coincidences is [Note: not to confuse the randomness is caused by mutations and by the environmental-dependent, non-random selection]. The validity of evolutionary theory was the amateur scientist [Note: first experience with science and experiments at the age of 9, beginning in medical school at age 16, numerous expeditions during their studies and beyond] Charles Darwin. [...] The book became popular in a short time. decides it was not but its scientific value, but its ideological significance [Note: bold assumption, the then science was the discussion of Darwin's ideas dominated]. Darwin's views were an important prop of the materialist philosophy that denies the existence of God . Followers of this philosophy were his most enthusiastic supporters: the founder of dialectical materialism, Karl Marx, Darwin devoted his famous book "Das Kapital."
searched opponents, opponents found, Darwin included in the series, viewers polarized goal. In principle, nothing more than, say, the less discreet manipulation "Darwin - Kaplan of the devil" (title of another document).
05:45 Here starts an attempt to explain the theory of evolution in a simple way - and lard it with falsehoods. The fact is that Darwin has the difficulties of his theory actually devoted a section in his book. From the "spontaneous emergence " referred to in the video, but there is nothing to read. Instead, Darwin describes the emergence of the very first life as a " unexplained " because the science is "in utter confusion about the interactions of earth's inhabitants for so many bygone periods of their history." Here indeed is a problem that the theory of evolution as a whole does not, however. The emergence of life itself is dated to a period about 3-4 billion years ago. Logically, it is far from easy to take over such a long time past statements. However, access to this area of research in the recent past, some breakthroughs. While the classic Miller-Urey primordial soup experiment "demonstrated that can occur under certain conditions and energy intake from water, ammonia, hydrogen and methane, simple amino acids and other organic compounds and that life would probably be formed in shallow waters at the sea surface, but recent experiments with more emphasis on transition towards inorganic into organic molecules at hydrothermal vents (not the "black smokers" but with 90 ° C significantly cooler sources) on the seabed. Informs you a little about the work of William Martin , we find a plausible hypothesis for these operations.
With the statement Pasteur that life does not arise spontaneously, should ultimately the alleged error of Darwin, to rely on the spontaneous emergence, entlavt be scientific. Darwin only had to do just to do with the spontaneous emergence. The citation Oparin pursued no other aim. More specifically, his statement includes only that he not prove his experiments with the emergence of the first cell could no more, no less.
The second part of what's soon filed later.
can Interestingly, however, already observed, will make use of the resources in the proof of God. The attempt at a proof of God is at least not to the contrary is targeted by the Combination and manipulation in some cases seemingly hard, scientific facts, a rebuttal to evolution be provided. But if, as mentioned in the description of the video are "millions of irrefutable evidence" of the existence of God, why is it so consistently with the slogan "I have indeed no hard evidence, torpedo but any idea that my not Complies with criticism "argument?
end, I can blame no one, believed to be . Even from a purely scientific point of view makes sense of faith. Man has always declared its environment in the way that suits his knowledge and his life is not unnecessarily difficult. This knowledge has gaps, he has the choice to use his time to fill this gap - or saves a lot of time and effort, and fills the gaps that he needs to deal with his everyday life, with one or more gods. An easier way is without question the second, especially if few resources are available and, more pragmatically, the use of scarce resources for research are the chances of survival diminish. Why do people materially poorer countries are indeed more religious?
What is me very busy, the inability of many believers, on scientific knowledge involved, which diminish the power of God's own apparently. Is this God exists and he can really intervene in events, he compared the discovery of the less privileged people will probably cost almost his power. And he is not existing in a form which we would define as a single entity, but only in the minds of believers, his power is not threatened anyway. Why are the supporters of the round earth, the heliocentric world view, and many other people were Bishins with representatives of the theory of evolution by religious hard-liners constantly threatened with death? A small portion of distance to his own position would not only do many scientists
good ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment