Earth The Biography 2008 DVDRip XviD-NTXViD

Posted on 08.08.2008 at 14:11 in DVDRiP, Movies by Martin

One of the best documentaries ever made is now available on DVD and guys from group NTXViD were first to release this nice dvdrip. Although it has been nuked for bad IVTC, it’s still very watchable. Earth: The Biography is a rather long watch, the total runtime is 230 minutes, but it’s totally worth it. It’s not very obvious from the name of this release, but this should be actually only 1st of 2 discs.

This landmark series uses specialist imaging and compelling narrative to tell the life story of our planet, how it works, and what makes it so special. Examining the great forces that shape the Earth – volcanoes, the ocean, the atmosphere and ice – the programme explores their central roles in our planet’s story. How do these forces affect the Earth’s landscape, its climate, and its history? CGI gives the audience a ringside seat at these great events, while the final episode brings together all the themes of the series and argues that Earth is an exceptionally rare kind of planet – giving us a special responsibility to look after our unique world. This is a series that shows the Earth in new and surprising ways. Extensive use of satellite imagery reveals new views of our planet, while timelapse filmed over many months brings the planet to life. Offering a balance between dramatic visuals and illuminating facts, this ground-breaking series makes global science truly compelling.

Earth.The.Biography.2008.DVDRip.XviD-NTXViD

2 CD, 1.4 GB, ntxvid-etb.d1
230 min, 1396kbps, 608×336, mp3
Amazon, nfo, torrent

Comments(127)

Previous post: Rumour: Apple’s secret kill switch in iPhone
Next post: Web search and emails most popular activities

Comments (127)

Feel free to post your Earth The Biography 2008 DVDRip XviD-NTXViD torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, megashares, sendspace, filesonic, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

chris

August 8th, 2008 | 14:14

sounds like big bang bull$hit
chrome307

August 8th, 2008 | 14:14

Bad IVTC
paul

August 8th, 2008 | 14:18

This is:

Earth – The Power of the Planet renamed.

Its nuked, and there is better copies of this around inc hi-def.
spar

August 8th, 2008 | 14:23

@1

Most stupidest first post I have ever seen, and you didnt even try.
BuYcKi

August 8th, 2008 | 14:31

ntxvid-etb.d1a.avi
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=021092f

ntxvid-etb.d1b.avi
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=cf461e1
cos

August 8th, 2008 | 14:51

===MEGASHARES===

ntxvid-etb.d1a.avi
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=c762b65

ntxvid-etb.d1b.avi
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=574e983
Mike

August 8th, 2008 | 14:51

Awesome! Where can I find the 720p version?
*#*

August 8th, 2008 | 14:52

to post #1:

we are all living under the same sky, but not everyone is having the same horizon
Malcolm

August 8th, 2008 | 14:53

@7 on a much better site that acutally supports HD lol
Wah

August 8th, 2008 | 15:01

@1
Are you saying it sounds like big bang bullocks?

@2
Bad IVTC = choppy camera movement and fast object movements = unwatchable = deserves to be watched on blu-ray/hi-def.
wee

August 8th, 2008 | 15:19

It’s still very watchable. Stop whining and buy the DVD if you don’t like this release.
busted

August 8th, 2008 | 15:20

3. paul
thx, found this http://www.torrentz.com/search?q=Earth+-+The+Power+of+the+Planet

1. chris
try harder, troll
Phara

August 8th, 2008 | 15:37

http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/9059 – part 1
http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/9060 – part 2

1 click stream and download
devious

August 8th, 2008 | 15:39

It’s called “Earth, The Biography” in the US
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=Earth+The+Biography&x=10&y=24
and “Earth, The Power of the Planet” in the UK
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_d_h_/026-9302867-4297206?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=Earth+The+Power+of+the+Planet&x=0&y=0
Look for your torrents accordingly…
erituh

August 8th, 2008 | 15:57

@13 that site requires you to run some fishy Java applet WITHOUT security limitations, no thanks
R-Soul

August 8th, 2008 | 16:04

@1 chris – obviously a bible basher if he thinks this is “big bang bull$hit” … of course the earth was made in 7 days by an old guy with a white beard.
none

August 8th, 2008 | 16:17

actually it was 6 as on sunday he chilled with a spliff groomed his beard and drunk stella then beat his wife
S_R

August 8th, 2008 | 16:28

ROFLMAO
lowlow

August 8th, 2008 | 16:37

RS links?
common sense

August 8th, 2008 | 16:39

R-Soul, he makes as much sense as you twits who believe you evolved from some squishy little critter in the ocean who moved to land and somehow suddenly knew how to breathe air instead of water. what happens when you bring a fish out of water? It dies because it cannot breathe. What happens when you go into water and go under…can you suddenly breathe water instead of air? And if you can already breathe water then why the hell do you need lungs to breathe air? Not to mention that with all the swimmers and the thousands of years they have been in the water, dont you think that just one of them would have developed some form of gills?

And as for testing the age of something..PUH-LEAZE. MIT tested a LIVING mullosk in 2005 by carbon dating the critter. According to the known age it was still growing, but according to the carbon dating it registered as 2.9 million years old.

These silly twits cannot even tell me what the weather is going to be 2 months from now, and you really expect anyone with any common sense to believe they can tell you how old something is by carbon dating or what the weather is going to be like in 100 years?

It seems that you have more faith in your religion then he does..and your religion seems hell bent on disproving his. Look at it from a rational point of view. If he believes in a higher power and he dies and there is nothing, he is not out anything but time. On the other hand if you insist that there is nothing after you die and you suddenly come face to face with a higher power…what are you going to do, look at it and say “oooppp’s sorry bout not believing in you” How much good do you really think that is going to do you? In short if he wants to believe in a higher power, then leave him the f^%k alone dips^%t!
NinjaGaijin

August 8th, 2008 | 16:44

15. yeahh screw ninja video..dodgy
Paul

August 8th, 2008 | 16:57

Common sense – you’re joking right?

First – fish don’t breathe water, they use their gills to extract oxygen from the water. It’s not TOO difficult to think that over millions of years they might adapt to breath oxygen without having to extract it from the water. Evolution takes millions and millions of years, not 5 minutes sitting in a bath. Also, I’m sure you’re not aware, but EVERY human being HAS GILLS during the early stages of development in the womb.

Second – the reason swimmers don’t have gills is because they spend a very small percentage of their lifetime in the water. If our entire population lived in water for thousands of years, yeah it might start to happen. By your thought, just because we’re exposed to air our whole life, we should probably have wings by the time we’re 50.

Science is about using the past to make accurate predictions of the future. Science and math are things that are quantifiable, faith is not. Faith is something you either have or do not have. There’s no other explanation than that.

Back on topic – great documentary, well worth the large download. Better versions are out there though.
dror

August 8th, 2008 | 17:02

Here are all 5 episodes as a torrent: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1100507

As soon as I’m done downloading it, I’ll upload it to Rapidshare
me

August 8th, 2008 | 17:10

Earth the Power of the Planet Season 1 Complete Series

http://hd-bits.ro/download.php/4817/Earth%20the%20Power%20of%20the%20Planet%20Season%201%20Complete%20Series.torrent

Earth the Power of the Planet

Show Summary
Dr Iain Stewart’s acclaimed five-part factual series which traces the origins of our planet. The five episodes focus on volcanoes, the atmosphere, ice, the oceans and the big picture of Earth’s place in space.
The epic story of planet Earth is told in a new, landmark series for BBC Two. Using spectacular images, illuminating science content and compelling narration, the series reveals how each one of the great forces, including volcanoes, ice, the ocean and the atmosphere, have played a critical and central role in the development of Earth since its birth 4.6 billion years ago.
Highlighting the major events that have shaped the Earth’s history and allowed life to flourish, presenter Dr Iain Stewart (Journeys From The Centre Of The Earth and Journeys Into The Ring Of Fire) visits some of the most remote places on the planet. The series follows him as he abseils into a lava lake in Ethiopia and cave dives in the underwater caverns left by the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Episode 1 – Volcanoes

Plot Outline
Dr. Iain Stewart reveals the role natural forces have played in the creation of the planet Earth. The first episode discusses volcanoes. Although they appear to be destructive, volcanoes have been crucial to the development of life on this planet. Iain’s journey takes him to Ethiopia to discover lava lakes, to Iceland to scuba dive between continents and to New Zealand to sample some hot springs. But its not just a big holiday for Dr. Stewart: he has a serious point to make.
In this first programme, Iain examines the role of volcanoes. Far removed from the feared and destructive image they have, he explains how no other force has played a more important role in creating the planet today.
The heat that fuels volcanoes also drives some of the most fundamental processes on the planet. In Rotorua, New Zealand, Iain shows how volcanoes have played a critical role in keeping the planet habitable by providing a natural form of global warming, and how they saved the planet from one of the greatest disasters it has ever faced – "Snowball Earth".
Seven hundred million years ago, Earth completely froze over. Entirely covered by ice, the planet reflected most of the Sun’s heat back into space. Over millions of years, volcanoes erupted from under the ice and, gradually, carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere until a super-greenhouse effect finally melted the snowball. Within a few million years of the snowball ending, complex life had evolved.

Episode 2 – The Atmosphere

Plot Outline
Dr Iain Stewart travels into the stratosphere in a cold-war fighter jet this week, as the epic story of planet Earth continues. His eyebrows are singed, however, in Siberia as he sets fire to methane – a powerful greenhouse gas escaping from the frozen lakes.
Highlighting the major events which have shaped the Earth’s history and allowed life to flourish, Iain explores the Earth’s atmosphere and explains how it is completely different from any other planet. According to the normal laws of chemistry, it shouldn’t exist – the reason it is so different is it has been created by life.
When the planet was born, the atmosphere was made up of noxious volcanic gases. And it might have stayed that way for ever had it not been for the emergence of life. Iain visits Australia, home to some of the most ancient forms of life – stromatolites. These simple bacteria were responsible for transforming the atmosphere, giving the Earth oxygen and causing a revolution in the story of the planet. As a result, the atmosphere changed for ever.
But the atmosphere doesn’t just give us the air we breathe – it also creates the weather – and Iain visits Argentina to discover what makes this one of the stormiest places on the planet.
Meanwhile, in the frozen wastes of Siberia, Iain investigates how recent rises in the levels of carbon dioxide are threatening to destabilise the climate in unexpected ways. In a spectacular sequence, he sees how methane – a greenhouse gas much more powerful than carbon dioxide – is starting to bubble out of the melting permafrost.

Episode 3 – Ice

Plot Outline
Since human beings have existed on the planet, nothing has done more to shape the world than ice. It may be nothing more than frozen water, but it holds extraordinary power – carving the landscape and unleashing terrible catastrophes. Ice has not only changed the course of human evolution, it may now threaten our future.
Dr Iain Stewart continues his epic story of planet Earth tonight as he comes face to face with ice on a precarious climb 150 metres up a frozen waterfall. He visits a unique ice lab in Arctic Norway, which has been dug out underneath a glacier. Viewing the glacier in action from below, he is able to learn how it is able to cause so much destruction.
Ice has such phenomenal power it can cut through solid rock. One of the world’s top climbers describes how Yosemite’s towering granite peaks of El Capitan and Half Dome have become Meccas for climbers, because of the smoothness and steepness of the rock that has been worn by glacial ice.
In order to see how the planet’s ice is changing, Iain joins an expedition up the massive Jacobshavn glacier in Greenland to see how, and why, it has retreated more than 10 kilometres in the last few years.
There is now no doubt that across most of the planet, ice is melting. It’s believed it will cause the biggest change in the appearance of the planet since the dawn of human civilisation

Episode 4 – Oceans

Plot Outline
The oceans are almost as ancient as the planet itself – when you look out over the sea you are looking at a view that is unchanged for billions of years. But the oceans are far more than just huge reservoirs of water. They have transformed our planet. Their brute force carves the coastline. And they can leave an extraordinary legacy. They transfer energy around the planet and drive the climate.
Above all, we are now beginning to understand how the oceans are connected by an incredible network of currents. They’re so critical to the health of our world that when they failed it led to the greatest extinction in Earth’s history.
Iain Stewart’s journey begins on Hawaii, where he shows how the oceans capture and store energy from the wind.

Episode 5 – Rare Earth

Plot Outline
Our planet is unique within the solar system. Four-and-a-half billion years ago it had a ‘twin’ named Theia which was absorbed into the Earth, increasing its gravity and allowing it to form an atmosphere. Iain travels to Meteor Crater in Arizona to explore the atmosphere’s role in protecting us from bombardment by meteorites. Life on earth only prospers because it is provided with right amount of heat from the sun.

imdb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1145500/
imdb rating: 8.2
aditional information: http://www.episodeworld.com/show/Earth_-_The_Power_Of_The_Planet/season=1/english
Mike

August 8th, 2008 | 17:19

@ me
WOW, that’s a review!
joejoe

August 8th, 2008 | 17:29

@3 thanks paul, i already have it under the original name. you saved me a download!
AL

August 8th, 2008 | 17:32

Common Sense!

Well said…But I dont think that this Documentary is about Evolutionism.
mrtorch

August 8th, 2008 | 17:48

@20,common sense, (ROFLMAO). So you’re saying if I insist that there is no higher power and there is a higher power, I’ll be punished when I die for doubting that higher power?

Well to be honest if that is how God (if there is such a thing) operates, then I don’t want anything to do with the egotistical sociopath that you call God!!!!
bonko

August 8th, 2008 | 18:13

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4027921/Earth.2007.LiMiTED.DVDRip.XviD-ENABLE
KEN

August 8th, 2008 | 19:22

http://www.torrentdownloads.net/search/?new=1&search=Earth+The+Biography+2008+DVDRip+XviD
baddab

August 8th, 2008 | 19:49

@common sense:

lets think your idea through. so the person who doesnt believe in a higher power and therefore has lived his life the way he wanted to and enjoyed it to the fullest, dies, and he might get screwed if there is a higher power that doesnt like him.

now lets see you, you lived a shi**y life, with ridiculous rules and traditions, not even scratching your limits and making the most out of your lifem, you die, and oh look, there is a higher power, TOLD YOU, but wait, what, i was in the wrong religion? waaaaahhhhhhh, so tell me again, who is really screwed here and is more likely to lose something…
bailando

August 8th, 2008 | 20:12

http://www.mininova.org/tor/1675807
si

August 8th, 2008 | 21:12

how do you unpack the files and what is an rg file extension ?
beenbee

August 8th, 2008 | 21:22

Earth.The.Biography.E01.2007.Bluray.VC1.1080P.WMV-NOVO
DamsDams/NVRLND

August 8th, 2008 | 21:44

Plube.com is down???!!! whats happened??
kept

August 8th, 2008 | 21:56

Can someone confirm if thi difers to this one released in Feb? It looks the same but the runtimes are different.

Earth.2007.LiMiTED.DVDRip.XviD-ENABLE
Rls date…….: 14/02/2008
Genre……….: Documentary
Runtime……..: 95 min
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0393597/
ayoub

August 8th, 2008 | 22:15

@baddab
Yes my friend I totally agree with you BUT:
higher power =/= good power…
If God creates us then HE’S NOT PERFECT and our relationship with him is ruled by fear and only fear (but you can love him if you’re happy about your life…)
misterwrong

August 8th, 2008 | 22:25

does anyone have ff or uploaded mirrors?
and the question of #38 is interesting too.
actually

August 8th, 2008 | 23:05

it is not 1 of 2 it is the complete documentary – nat geo has it at 230 min to purchase… fyi
Badman

August 8th, 2008 | 23:17

can’t wait for the MKV 720p release.
common sense

August 9th, 2008 | 00:09

No, for the dumbs^&ts that cannot understand english and reason, what I am saying I will explain to you slowly so you can finally get it.

If one wishes to believe in a higher power, then that is totally their buisiness and as long as they are not harming anyone, they should be left alone and not made the butt of your childish taunts. Just as on the other hand if you dont believe in a higher power, then feel free to do the same and you should not be made fun of.

The point is, since you obvioulsy are too damn bloody thick to get it; is that if you believe in a higher power then you are wasting no ones time but your own if one does not exist. If you dont and one does exist, then “Oopps My Bad” just isnt going to cut it.

In short, as long as they are not harming you or anyone else, leave them believe what they wish and you do the same…or in terms you can understand, you leave them alone and they will leave you alone.

Understand NOW bunky?
bububu

August 9th, 2008 | 00:13

ha ha,
can’t believe some idiots still don’t understand evolution!
and @20 wow you expect to cite one study (well really you didn’t cite it at all, please give us details of the paper you’re referring to) and convince us all of your ill founded belief, yet you chose to ignore every study that runs counter to your precious book. if you truly believe in a god then how about giving up all the advances afforded to you by the sciences you detest. next time you fill your car up at the gas pump ask yourself how come those most adept at finding that oil that fuels your car laugh at you and your timescale of the planet earth while you sing songs to santa claus and the toothfairy.
jharek

August 9th, 2008 | 00:22

@44

even if religious people arent harming others, the fact they believe in a fairy tale should be cause for concern, and their beliefs allow a certain kind of shelter for more extremist elements who do cause much harm around the world.
A bit sad

August 9th, 2008 | 00:35

Looks refreshing. They (BBC) usually have the most beautiful shots you can come up with.

@the anti-religion and pro-religion posts,
neither is better when both attempt to force their beliefs upon the other. To each his or her own as long as there is full understanding of the others beliefs.
A bit sad

August 9th, 2008 | 00:41

@46,
I was thinking about that earlier. I agree, though the Capitalist system of the United States that freely goes about raping the world is probably of greater concern for harbouring extremist elements (e.g. aggression against other nations) than are extremist religious views. Though in the US, the latter fuels the former to a substantial degree.
va

August 9th, 2008 | 01:01

lol u lot are funny
why the hell go off an a religious vs evolution fight HAHAH
its a website where we all download stuff and steal from other people
thou shalt not steal<<<< remember that one in the bible hahah
if u are that religious then think about that dude as ya GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY!!
MOOOWHAHAHAHAHAH!
lols
tards
hahahah
MAXp0wr

August 9th, 2008 | 01:19

Religion is evil.
oh hi there

August 9th, 2008 | 01:30

Great series, played the NOVO blu-ray 1080p releases on my xbox360 and they looked great, I wish they would release parts 3, 4 and 5 though
Sane

August 9th, 2008 | 03:59

If you follow religion and believe nothing evolves, then everyone around the globe should look like Adam and Eve, or whatever religious origin of man you believe in.

Life evolves, or it ends.

Religion is a restraint on man’s behavior. Without religion, there would be chaos for primative man. We are still far too primative to exist without it.

I’ll get this in HD.
actually

August 9th, 2008 | 04:44

my bad – after unpacking it, it is not the full 230 min… sorry… the rlslog description is correct :\
jrr

August 9th, 2008 | 06:29

can the NOVO releases (Earth.The.Biography.E01.2007.Bluray.VC1.1080P.WMV-NOVO, etc.)
be found anywhere but Usenet right now? I haven’t been able to find them.
Onyx 09

August 9th, 2008 | 09:20

Give then entire make up of matter at its core is wave-packets, that step in and out of this dimension, and no one yet knows where they go too, there is a progressive reasoning developing that all external reality is merely a perceptual artifact, interpreted by our sensory organs as solidity.

The truth my very well may be, we are infact immersed in nothing more then a sea of energy, the unified field itself.

it is our consiousness that creates this realm.
Onyx 09

August 9th, 2008 | 09:25

Otherwords, all this exsists becuase of you.
(the real you!) which is the real me! as we are one and the same god consiousness… experiencing itself in a zillion perspetives (personal sensory experience). When you speak from here, you can echo your the voice of god upon others, which they hear, becuase it is you who is speaking back to you
Onyx 09

August 9th, 2008 | 09:26

sorry about the terrible grammar. Lazy typing.
Wah

August 9th, 2008 | 10:51

@ Onyx 09

How well established is this ‘idea’ you speak of, compared to the big bang or evolution?
Snelkookpan

August 9th, 2008 | 12:31

nzb anyone?
playpause

August 9th, 2008 | 13:47

God is a waste of time.
mladshiy starosta

August 9th, 2008 | 15:14

720p HDrip, rapidshare

http://www.rapidfind.org/upload/showthread.php?t=81342
mladshiy starosta

August 9th, 2008 | 15:27

Pass : SHaHroKH
ANB

August 9th, 2008 | 17:49

@ 29.Mr. torch
Mr. torch i think u need to replace ur batteries….
ANB

August 9th, 2008 | 17:55

@47,48
N well said “a bit sad”
PeterDragon

August 9th, 2008 | 22:55

@48 you can thank the many soldiers that died giving you the freedom to be able to express your believes and please remember, all the United States Of American ever ask of a country that they gave freedom to, is enough land to bury the dead military men and woman who died for your freedom of speach.
Think hard about your cutting words about freedom.
Wah

August 9th, 2008 | 23:45

@66
A religious person could explain all the above with a few sentences and a patient smile.Or they could willingly not explain or justify to you something you obviously care nothing about and how ridiculously little you care about understanding their faith.

Science admits when it is wrong, and tries to find the truth.Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called, ‘[i]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[/i],’ in 1962. One of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century, “he claims that” science does not tend towards the pursuit of truth, but rather it undergoes what he called, “paradigm shifts.” He says science can be just as dogmatic as religion, if not more-so. Scientists interpret evidence according to their pre-conceived notions of how things are (or rather should be). They aren’t necessarily interested in finding the truth, but in finding evidence that can be interpreted to justify their worldview. If a scientist does not want to believe in God, then that will skew how he interprets evidence; and he won’t necessarily come to the right conclusion so much as he will come to an acceptable conclusion.

Science:
1.) It has had such terrible, unexpected side effects, how can we work to cultivate a scientific humility that will help us avoid these ill effects? Etc. And I could be judging the naturalistic worldview in light of the actions of some of its adherents, since the same angle could be taken on religion but I doubt anyone will deny that there are two sides to every technological coin. E.g., American television allows for speedy mass-communication, but it also pushes simplistic, quippy, emotive discourse. The Internet now allows for loads of user participation, but its cyber-communities also engender 1337 and text-message lingo.

Nonetheless, we’ve benefited a great deal from discoveries made by those with naturalistic views, and suffered a great deal. Same is true for those with religious views (I don’t see why I would have any more vested interest in the views of Deists than I would Secular Humanists) who have shaped national policies and public morality.

2.) Like government, science has to learn what it’s good at and what it’s bad at. When it doesn’t have a good enough edge — say, when a scientist doesn’t have nearly enough information — it should just admit that it doesn’t have a solution and move on. The need for tidy packaged solutions causes many problems. Unless science works in a worldview that has room for real mystery — not merely the categories of knowledge and ignorance — it’s always going to wind up making foolish mistakes out of arrogance.

3.) Science answers questions about how things work and what things are through the assumption-centered hypothesis which teaches that an unobservable principle is responsible for speciation and order through random alterations, but it cannot answer the questions of greater meaning that scientific discoveries may point to: what kind of naturalistic assumptions go into science, and how can we work to do a non-naturalistic science? How do the structures of scientific thought shape our understanding of the world, and how should we reshape them?

Religion:
I used to attend a church and neither I or anyone there I knew fit those “stereotypical views” at all that you described.

Many people have many misconceptions about religion just as much as science but I’m not sure if either your ‘misconceptions’ or personal experiences have led you to your conclusion.

Either way, people use religion as a tool to “oppress, abuse, etc.”

People are the problem.
jrr

August 10th, 2008 | 01:52

torrent of the 720p? also, are you sure that’s not the old bbc planet earth series (there are a couple different ones)
stooge

August 10th, 2008 | 02:45

You know I have been to earth and it is not that good
Paul

August 10th, 2008 | 03:09

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.

Eat up that Evolution THEORY crap monkeymen. MacroEvolution DOES NOT HAPPEN. Never has. Microevolution is a natural process which God intended.

Or you can not freak out and believe that a supreme god such as Jesus could of used evolution has his “programmming language” for life.
Either way its better than hell(re: eternal, even longer than a torrent download of mass effect)
Wah

August 10th, 2008 | 03:20

@71

Are you espousing theistic evolution?
f0revainfail

August 10th, 2008 | 05:09

http://www.extremedownloadz.com/2008-releases/900-earth-biography-2008-dvdrip-xvid-ntxvid.html
APat

August 10th, 2008 | 06:42

After a lof of searching, I think I’ve managed to figure out what this is:

This is not “Earth” (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0393597/), which is a 95 min movie based on the BBC tv series “Planet Earth”.

This is “Earth: The Power of the Planet”, a 5 part TV series.

I know people pointed this out earlier, but it got really confusing with links posted, pointing to both movies, and the fact that the IMDB page for “Earth” (95 min) uses the same image as the Amazon page for “Earth – Biography / Power of the Planet; the picture is incorrect on the IMDB page, I believe).
Ushiila

August 10th, 2008 | 08:26

Good job with the 720p – though it’s a shame that I found CRC errors in some files of part 2:

http://rapidshare.com/files/133866638/BBC.Earth.Ep2.720p.SHaHroKH.part05.rar

http://rapidshare.com/files/133866638/BBC.Earth.Ep2.720p.SHaHroKH.part06.rar

http://rapidshare.com/files/133866638/BBC.Earth.Ep2.720p.SHaHroKH.part15.rar
Checksum

August 10th, 2008 | 14:45

This is episode 1 (Volcanoes) of the original BBC Series, it is not the movie.

For those intent on pushing creationism in these forums, please consider equal time for the ‘Flying Spaghetti monster’ which as a theory is a little more intelligent and practically minded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Checksum

August 10th, 2008 | 15:57

As stated by Bobby Henderson, in an open letter sent to the Kansas State Board of Education in January 2005, the theory of Flying Spaghetti Monster and the theory of intelligent design have equal validity:

“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”
APat

August 10th, 2008 | 16:47

After a bit more research, it seems “Earth – The Biography” is not just a renamed version of “Earth – The Power of the Planet”. It’s actually a shaved down version (e.g. part 1, Volcanoes, is cut from the original 58 mins, to about 46 mins).

CD1 of this release contains “Volcanoes”, and about 10 mins of “Atmosphere”

CD2 contains the rest of “Atmosphere” and some of “Ice” (part 3 of 5).

As mentioned, the second disc is still missing.

I for one, have opted to download the original, individual episode releases, (released by MVGroup, torrents available elsewhere, search for “Power of the Planet MVGropup”). They have the complete content, a bit higher resolution, and much better audio (though, not HD).
admin

August 10th, 2008 | 17:48

So.. pastor Ted was g4y huh. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

Guess we’re all just silly old humans, religious or not. But if God gave a cr4p, He’d at least make sure His church was run by good men, not liars and child mo1esters. But apparently He DOES care if they’re g4y or female. There’s some priorities for you.
Panda

August 10th, 2008 | 17:56

RS Links to the entire series:

http://rapidshare.com/files/122196007/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.1of5.Volcanoes.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122196707/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.1of5.Volcanoes.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122197085/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.1of5.Volcanoes.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122197572/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.1of5.Volcanoes.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122198005/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.1of5.Volcanoes.part5.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122198368/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.1of5.Volcanoes.part6.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122198790/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.1of5.Volcanoes.part7.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122198992/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.1of5.Volcanoes.part8.rar

http://rapidshare.com/files/122225942/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.2of5.Atmosphere.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122226304/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.2of5.Atmosphere.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122226592/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.2of5.Atmosphere.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122226912/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.2of5.Atmosphere.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122227247/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.2of5.Atmosphere.part5.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122227530/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.2of5.Atmosphere.part6.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122227841/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.2of5.Atmosphere.part7.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122227961/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.2of5.Atmosphere.part8.rar

http://rapidshare.com/files/122605295/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.3of5.Ice.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122605638/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.3of5.Ice.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122605975/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.3of5.Ice.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122606455/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.3of5.Ice.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122606833/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.3of5.Ice.part5.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122607352/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.3of5.Ice.part6.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122607892/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.3of5.Ice.part7.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122608062/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.3of5.Ice.part8.rar

http://rapidshare.com/files/122705141/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.4of5.Oceans.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122705680/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.4of5.Oceans.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122706143/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.4of5.Oceans.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122706515/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.4of5.Oceans.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122706889/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.4of5.Oceans.part5.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122707225/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.4of5.Oceans.part6.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122707632/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.4of5.Oceans.part7.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/122707811/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.4of5.Oceans.part8.rar

http://rapidshare.com/files/124307885/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.5of5.Rare.Earth.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/124308212/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.5of5.Rare.Earth.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/124308641/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.5of5.Rare.Earth.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/124309056/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.5of5.Rare.Earth.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/124309434/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.5of5.Rare.Earth.part5.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/124309991/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.5of5.Rare.Earth.part6.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/124310676/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.5of5.Rare.Earth.part7.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/124310941/BBC.Earth.-.The.Power.Of.The.Planet.5of5.Rare.Earth.part8.rar

No pass, credit to uploader.
Panda

August 10th, 2008 | 22:02

@83 Wah..

omg you scare me :O

At least we both agree that Dawkins is over the top and probably doing more harm than good. I’ll have to re-read your post a few times, as your historical references are way beyond my knowledge. Perhaps we’re coming at this from differing paradigms.

But I think I agree with your statements.. human beings are naturally dogmatic – we like our safety zone, whatever the subject.

But I guess all I’m saying is that science at least encourages us to always ask the question, “is this the best way?” Even if it takes a long time to change, change happens. So I view science, like you, as a truer reflection of a species which has survived so far by being curious, creative and inventive.

I see religion as oppressive of all those three qualities outside its own dogma. Scientific dogma comes from simple human dogmatism, which can be dealt with. Not some archaic material written by someone long dead and nothing outside that exists.

But I’m not against religion per se. It makes a lot of people happy, and where it makes people unhappy or is oppressive, it should be moderated, like any other human behaviour being taken to an unhealthy extreme.

Science also has its extremes, as Dawkins’ approach ironically seems to illustrate. But the big difference for me, is that science welcomes argument, as a general principle. Religion resists it as a general principle.

I like living in a world which has all sorts of beliefs and ways of life – as long as the general principle is that anyone is allowed to disagree.
Timmahh!

August 10th, 2008 | 22:13

Just watched the first episode of the series, Volcano.. yuck, its “edu-tainment”, I learned all this stuff in high school!!

omg spoiler alert!! The Earth has hot lava at its core, the plates move the continents, hot springs are powered by heat under the ground!!11!one!!one1

Come on BBC, make some REAL docos again, like The Planets or The Atom, those were quality. This is cr@p, and the visual director looks like he would have preferred directing the next series of Primeval, not a serious doco. It’s not for anyone who wants to actually learn anything new.

Very disappointing. I love science docos but seriously you’d have to be in primary school to find this rubbish informative.
stooge

August 11th, 2008 | 00:15

You people honestly believe that solar systems as intricately balanced as our own would be scattered all throughout the universe? Hey guys if one planet in our solar system was out of sync and in a slightly different position our earth would not be able to support life and we would not even exist. The odds of this planetary balancing act happening again somewhere in space just once, let alone happening all over the universe is a 100 billion zillion to one shot.
If our sun, another planet or even our moon was closer or further away from us it would change everything and we would not be here. We already know what the elements of life or the stuff that everything is made from in the universe are. Everything came from the big bang so the building blocks of life are the same throughout the universe.
Aliens (if they exist and I’m not convinced) would have to conform to these fundamental laws of physics also; all life would still have comply to these building blocks or elements no matter where it was so it would have to be animal, vegetable, insect, or marine. It would have to be cold blooded or warm blooded and have to breathe some type of air or have gills.
This could not just happen randomly all over the universe. Life is a miracle no matter what you believe and the size of the universe has nothing to do with it. Compare earth to a snow flake; not one snow flake has ever been the same, and how many trillions have fallen? We are alone whether or not we were created or if we evolved. The spark of life is precious, so stop taking it for granted.
Wah

August 11th, 2008 | 06:16

“omg you scare me :O” Just trying to get my point across.

“I’ll have to re-read your post a few times, as your historical references are way beyond my knowledge. Perhaps we’re coming at this from differing paradigms. ” You’d be very hard-pressed to justify (1) science through the paradigm of enlightenment mindset in light of its history and (2)your adherence to its standards, if you can’t support your story of science.

“But I guess all I’m saying is that science at least encourages us to always ask the question, “is this the best way?” Even if it takes a long time to change, change happens. So I view science, like you, as a truer reflection of a species which has survived so far by being curious, creative and inventive.

I see religion as oppressive of all those three qualities outside its own dogma. Scientific dogma comes from simple human dogmatism, which can be dealt with. Not some archaic material written by someone long dead and nothing outside that exists.

But I’m not against religion per se. It makes a lot of people happy, and where it makes people unhappy or is oppressive, it should be moderated, like any other human behaviour being taken to an unhealthy extreme.” But the story you’re saying about “science and religion” is based upon a paradigm that I see no justification.

“Science also has its extremes, as Dawkins’ approach ironically seems to illustrate. But the big difference for me, is that science welcomes argument, as a general principle. Religion resists it as a general principle.” IOW, science is “neutral.” But I see no evidence for this argument.

“I like living in a world which has all sorts of beliefs and ways of life – as long as the general principle is that anyone is allowed to disagree.” You’re espousing that the paradigm behind this utopian world is “neutral” because it allows for disagreements as a general principle but what is its justification as the basis of an enlightened view, considering its historical standards by which you’re judging religion as opposed to science.

What reason do we have for universalizing post-Enlightenment historical standards? You need to subject the presuppositions from which you are analyzing religious doctrine to the same rigor of criticism you are applying to religious doctrine. The entire appeal of Enlightenment criticism is that it claims to be “reasonable” or “neutral.” But upon even an ounce of inspection it turns out not to be “neutral” at all.

This means that the place for argument is my particular examples of the Enlightenment in action. You’ve got to show how in a basic way the Enlightenment really produced metanarratives that were actually centered around progress and goodness but were not totalitarian. For instance, you’ve got to show either that Manifest Destiny was not totalitarian or that Manifest Destiny was not a decent representative of America thus the Social Contract thus the Enlightenment. Hopefully this restructuring of the argument will prove beneficial.
Higher power

August 11th, 2008 | 17:28

Shame on all you pagans believing in the christian pantheon. When the ragnarök comes you shall all see that your Trinity is only a shallow lie told by Loki to misslead you, so that you are not ready when the end comes.
Panda

August 11th, 2008 | 21:00

#86 stooge said:
“The odds of this planetary balancing act happening again somewhere in space just once, let alone happening all over the universe is a 100 billion zillion to one shot.”

And you came to that figure with what calculation?

Your argument depends wholly on assuming intelligent life can evolve within very marginal parameters. Why do you think this is so?

It’s well known (as of fairly recently) that bacteria & microbes can exist and indeed thrive under various extreme environments (and I mean extremes) of temperature, pressure and chemistry, and can gain energy from sources other than the Sun. We used to think (not long ago) that nothing could survive without at least *some* radiation absorbed from the Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

Now, assuming humans did indeed evolve from micro-organisms which evolved various adaptations over billions of years, it’s not difficult to imagine that even extremophiles could evolve a level of complexity over billions of years that could lead to [what *we* call] intelligence, suited to their environment. Humans have attained (albeit barely) intelligence within very tight environmental parameters – so why not extremophiles, given time?

The significant subjectivity of the term is another topic altogether. I mean we only judge something as “intelligent” if *we* can actually understand *it*, which is kind of ironic and ass-about if you ask me.

Who knows what other intelligences will evolve eons after us, and indeed may have evolved and disappeared again in the distant past? Or do you think humans will be around forever? Whatever our egos say, there’s nothing saying we’re the bees knees of the evolutionary process. We’re another experiment, suited to this time and place – how long we stick around depends entirely on us.

So anyway, we evolved from goo, and I don’t see a reason why another intelligence couldn’t evolve from “extreme goo”. But I gather it wouldn’t think like we do and the idea of an evolved Extreme Goo civilisation using radio waves (with apologies to SETI) is, I think, asking a bit much.

Also, the universe is pretty old, and will be around for a lot longer, and humans have been around for – what – a microsecond of a femtosecond of universe time.. and we expect someone else to have popped up at the same instant as us, AND in the same galaxy out of hundreds of billions?

No, it’s not that life itself is exceedingly unlikely, it’s that the chance of us actually KNOWING about it is even more unlikely than anyone actually replying to this dribbling post.

So personally, I think other intelligences are GOING to be or HAVE been or ARE out there, but the chance of them being around at the same time, the same general area and having a similar frame of reference for communication is so exceedingly slim it’s right this moment throwing up lunch in the hotel toilet before rejoining its rather concerned friends.

We need to drop the ego and work with what we have – one Earth. That’s it, that’s all we have and all we will ever know! I think all this SETI wishful thinking is nice and fluffy, and hey keep an open mind and all, but if you ask me, it’s dangerously like an unconscious desire for us to be saved by a higher power… benevolent gods or advanced aliens, take your pick! We’re like children, we love the idea that we can make a mess of things and be forgiven and saved. But it’s time to realise just how dangerous that fantasy is.

Knowing what we know now, it’s irresponsibly avoidant and inevitably fatal to maintain that age-old way of looking at the world. THIS IS IT, and we’re trashing it like there’s no tomorrow. We’re caught in an old mindser, thinking of Earth like we always have – somewhere that has always been around since we can remember, and so always will.

But hey, that’s human nature. I really don’t believe we’re psychologically ready, as a species, to take responsibility for our own actions, our own existence. Look how we’ve always behaved! That won’t change, and we’ll ultimately follow that behaviour to its logical end.

Hopefully, once the Earth recovers from what we’ve done (and it will of course – this is just a blip on the surface, it’s seen much worse before now and will again) another species will replace us which may have more of a sense of right and wrong, and not make the mistakes we did. We have learned a little (not enough evidently) from civilisations previous to us (and species dying out around us) who failed to adapt their behaviour to the realities of their environment.

We need another few thousand years as a species to mature to the level where we can be responsible with the technology we’ve developed. Dangerous monkeys we are, and irresponsible ones. Perhaps another type of animal will evolve in our wake, one more inclined to work together.

I rather like the idea of intelligent meer cats. They seem pretty cool.
Panda

August 12th, 2008 | 20:41

Ok Wah, I’ll bite. You seem to be missing my points along the way, maybe I’m not explaining my thoughts properly.

1. Your argument depends on naturalistic presuppositions that assume things happening now has always been happening before. Why do you think this is so?

Not at all, I’m saying we can’t assume the way things happen now, i.e. oxygen breathing, water-drinking life, is necessarily the only way to advanced civilisations. I’m saying exactly the opposite to what I think you think I’m saying..

2. Is it really fair to compare something which is easily observable to something which is impossible to observe and put them on the same level?

I’m not making a comparison between observation and inference, I’m just raising the argument that assuming our species evolved from goo under these conditions, other species may evolve from goo under other, perhaps extreme, conditions. Harkening to your previous post, if you consider my raising that possibility is “absurd”, then you’re being rather dogmatic.

3. “It’s a HUGE leap to go from slight changes in bacteria to humans (who were able to land on the moon, create computers and the internet) came from apes? This is a very large leap.”

No, it’s a countless number of very very small leaps, over extremely long periods of time. Seriously, are you a Creationist? Because that is their argument: “What, how dare you walk around in smocks and tell us we’ve evolved from slime and apes! Can an ape fix my Hummer? Can slime add the sum of 3+6 and post on the interthingy??”

4. If you can show significant changes in animals then you might start to sound convincing.

Try proving that animals DON’T evolve then get back to me. What is your point exactly? We have working theories that fit really well with the observed world. There are reasons why people say dinosaur bones are so old – it has something to do with isotope half-life but I’m not a physicist. If you have a problem with the theories that generations of people have spent their lives discovering, then spend some time trying to prove them wrong. Really, they’d love you for it.

“You can make all sorts of guesses about what those bones were like or how they got there, but you can’t make a hypothesis and testing it.”

Actually, you can. You can test it with the knowledge we have of carbon dating, we can compare how deep the bones are buried with what we know of geological formations over time. What, do you think they just pass a bone under a gamma ray or two and say “oh, this is xyz years old!” No, they (or someone else) will provide other supporting evidence from other fields of science that correlate. Or, if they don’t correlate, the theory is said to be contested. It’s all quite “scientific”, in that it’s open to debate.

How do you know the colour blue you see is the same colour blue someone else sees? You don’t, but you work with it until someone shows you otherwise. Thinking the Earth was flat was perfectly scientific, because once it was proven otherwise, intelligent people said, “wow, well we look a bit silly now don’t we but isn’t it wonderful!” That’s science for you – a lot of it is observable, a lot of it is conjecture, but anything is up for discussion if you have enough evidence to support your view.

“Did they not teach you the scientific method in grade school?”

Did they not teach you how not to be obnoxious?

Next post.. done here.
Wah

August 13th, 2008 | 01:40

….
Wah

August 13th, 2008 | 02:08

@91 Panda

“You seem to be missing my points along the way, maybe I’m not explaining my thoughts properly.”
Clearly, you are explaining them in a proper manner, so I know what your points are.

What I’m criticizing is your underlying assumptions behind them.

“I’m not making a comparison between observation and inference, I’m just raising the argument that assuming our species evolved from goo under these conditions, other species may evolve from goo under other, perhaps extreme, conditions.”I’m merely pointing out this false comparison behind your assumptions.

“Harkening to your previous post, if you consider my raising that possibility is “absurd”, then you’re being rather dogmatic.”
First off, harkening to your previous posts, if you’re espousing the Enlightenment view on science, then you’re being rather ‘dogmatic.’

Second, I’m being dogmatic for calling your hypothesis into question? Why should I accept naturalistic presuppositions if I take the biblical doctrines of Creation or Incarnation seriously?

I’m challenging the presupposition of your hypothesis.

You haven’t given reasons for this.

“No, it’s a countless number of very very small leaps, over extremely long periods of time.”
Which is not an observable phenomenon.

I have a hard time going from observing small changes to explaining life on earth in its seemingly infinite complexity.

“Try proving that animals DON’T evolve then get back to me. What is your point exactly?”
How about an example of an animal giving birth to an animal with a different number chromosomes?

“We have working theories that fit really well with the observed world. There are reasons why people say dinosaur bones are so old – it has something to do with isotope half-life but I’m not a physicist. If you have a problem with the theories that generations of people have spent their lives discovering, then spend some time trying to prove them wrong. Really, they’d love you for it.”
I don’t have a problem with the theories of evolution that are well-established, but why should I *entirely* accept the theory of evolution when a lot of its ideas are speculation?

“Actually, you can. You can test it with the knowledge we have of carbon dating, we can compare how deep the bones are buried with what we know of geological formations over time.”
I’m not talking about the age of the bones.

Fossil evidence and carbon dating may help to explain a theory but it is not a scientific observation of a 4.5 billion year evolutionary process that is not observable. You can’t do experiments on it.

“What, do you think they just pass a bone under a gamma ray or two and say “oh, this is xyz years old!””
But it borrows naturalistic presuppositions and in the case of a, say, a theistic evolutionist, it would be faulty. the Christian should presuppose that God has been actively involved with His creation. Therefore, what is commonly referred to as supernatural, is really completely natural, but it is simply divine. When we look at the universe, it only appears to be billions of years old if we presuppose things occurred naturally. The only reason we would have to explain away why bones appear to be of a certain age is if we presuppose that geologic formation occurred naturalistically uniformly, which is a basic fatal assumption you’re making. Or stars appear to be millions of light years away is if we presuppose that the light had to come to earth naturally.

As a Christian, I should reject that sort of presupposition. Why? Because they’re contrary to what I believe. If I don’t believe the earth was created through natural means, why would I look to the universe using naturalistic presuppositions? It doesn’t make sense. It’s like playing a “what if” game in my mind and then letting my mind get the best of me.

“No, they (or someone else) will provide other supporting evidence from other fields of science that correlate.”
Or it all could mean things were created with an “appearance” of age.

I would be more concerned with what “real science” tells me if only I were to assume that scientific knowledge monopolized Truth. But personally I do not accept modern science as dogmatic Truth (with a capitol ‘T’).

“Or, if they don’t correlate, the theory is said to be contested. It’s all quite “scientific”, in that it’s open to debate.”
But is this “kind” of “scientific-naturalistic understanding” inherently consistent when it’s examining its “own correspondence to reality” as a whole? Well the evolution theory doesn’t seem to play by their own rules of science and positivism even with the fossil evidence since the scientific method used in the process is emphatically and inherently ‘dubious.’ The fact that the fossil record is not the scientific method goes just to show you that, in lay terms, much of evolution is a theory, not a fact really. Pure speculation and hypothetical assumption about the world. The theory of evolution has more holes in it than the back-nine at Augusta. I know that the theory of evolution violates every single one of the laws of physics, mechanics, thermodynamics, etc.

As a matter of fact, and it’s really very sad, actually… a decade ago Johnson and Behe pointed out these interesting holes (via irreducible complexity, among other micro/macro issues dealing with different roles mutations play) in evolutionary theory, but drew all these really strong conclusions from such small observations. Then these proved to be somewhat interesting areas for research, and there are dozens of papers giving reconstructions of how we might reduce the complexity of these apparently irreducibly complex organs per cited instance of irreducible complexity. But now that all these papers have been published they’re not being recognized by the proponents of irreducible complexity, and the same arguments about “No one has tried to answer these questions…” are getting tossed around.

Irregardless, I’m not going to get into another pointless debate about that since people who believe in evolution are generally closed-minded to the idea of creation and that they also contort the evidence to fit their theories. So, I’m not going to enter into a debate that would prove pointless.

“How do you know the colour blue you see is the same colour blue someone else sees? You don’t, but you work with it until someone shows you otherwise. Thinking the Earth was flat was perfectly scientific…That’s science for you – a lot of it is observable, a lot of it is conjecture, but anything is up for discussion if you have enough evidence to support your view.”
I don’t consider “thinking the Earth was flat” was ’scientific’ at all.

Like “certain ancient writings” that are still applicable today, the Bible isn’t a 21st century western science textbook and neither the writers and authors should be viewed as ’scientists,’ as we understand the term today. If we used the bible as a ’science book’ we’d have no choice but to go back to believing “the earth is flat, immovable, the center of the universe and has a sky dome.” What we must bear in mind is that the people who wrote the Bible did not have the scientific advance that we have, and therefore they wrote in terms and concepts that they understood. I think we should try to understand where/when they came from and what/how they understood the real world to be so we can understand that their faiths weren’t rooted in delusions. They believed in things they didn’t understand and, from this historical/literal-allegorical context, what they ‘observed in truth’ wasn’t ‘factually’ true but was correspondingly real.

Additionally, no formal school of science was invented in biblical times, so there were no ’scientists’ to document any ’scientific’ accounts. So the verses weren’t written to be read as modern ’scientific’ journals as we understand it to be now. But biblical observations are still thought through and based on reality. Essentially, they classified their environment by what they look like and what they do, not their intricate inner workings. It’s really not any more “accurate” or “true” to classify the way modern science does it, and we get some pretty weird results doing it that way.

Besides, I think the biggest errors of reading the Bible stem from people trying to read it as if it was written yesterday for them personally, in English scientific terms, while ignoring broader contexts like the diversity of voices, language, culture and literary devices in which it was written from.
Wah

August 13th, 2008 | 02:12

..
Wah

August 13th, 2008 | 02:15

“[about your comment about intelligent people proving otherwise and being obnoxious]“

The world is full of m0r0ns until Galileo finally brings in the light? Come on now, this is chronological sn0bbery. If you can’t embrace all of history then you ought to suspect that you’re being a bit too narrow in your judgment of history.
waltito30

August 16th, 2008 | 18:53

Has anybody found srt subs for this release? English or Spanish.
starAtNight

August 17th, 2008 | 12:10

Science is an social historical phenomenon and like any discourse it was born in a context of human thinking , it evolves as the social species that invented it evolves. This is similar of Religion, that evolves through the re-interpreting and filtering of religious content for today’s audiences (except in marginal sects that attempt a more literal interpretation without regard for the fuller context of what that literal interpretation actually meant when it was written).

Everything said is said by Someone. Context is hidden within any statement of fact or truth. Even the most instinctively primal truths are only true in a social and historical context. Language brings forth the World and this is a creative bringing forth, as Language is a biological act and we are all different by degrees, our worlds that we bring forth are all different by degrees. Distinctions give us common ground and with them we build disourses (science, religeon, medicine, law, langauges etc.) that help us survive and coordinate our living to improve our conditions of life. There is not one World to be revealed to us (through divinity) but a million worlds to reveal to each other, through language.

Science permits such exchange and evolves through it. Science is a practice through a framework called the scientific tradition. Though science is not strictly a philosophy or religion, the wonder of the worlds we reveal to each other through science can satisfy the concern that we have as a historical/social species to place ourselves, our living, into the context of ”everything” that we come to know and understand through language.

We may never know everything there is to know, our structure may limit us to certain knowledge (size of our brains, our mass, distance we can see etc.) perhaps knowing everything (omniscience) is a misnomer in any event and a purely human invention in language of a perceived absolute. Point being that we may get pretty stuck at the edges of our current knowledge, e.g. we know that events happen but cannot fully or reliably explain why… at this point Science does not give way to Religion, it is human nature that turns to Religion.

Religion provides the tonic of belief and through this tonic provides a coma for intelligence. Put away your questionning, ignore that anyone sees the world differently and succumb to a single truth, a white light, an elixur of total enlightenment where everybody is equal, love is energy and all minds are one.

I call this Hollywood, the happy ending, the fairytale, the morphine for our worldy pain. I live for the thrill of discovery and that my life is distinct and the world i bring forth is unique to me since i see it through my biology (in language and through the social sharing that colours my world view that language permits), my living is a daily discovery and science has provided me with the context to understand it.
Wah

August 17th, 2008 | 13:43

I think there should be a distinction made between science and scientific philosophy, which is actually a system of asking questions of science, the discipline that thinks about science, but is not actually science itself, and speculating on the larger implications of scientific theories.

Many scientific philosophers are also scientists, but not all scientists are scientific philosophers and some scientific philosophers are not scientists. As it so happens, most of the fellows at the Discovery Institute (the leading ID think tank) DO happen to be Ph.Ds in science as well.

You see, science cannot answer the questions of greater meaning that scientific discoveries may point to. That is the realm of the scientific philosophers.

And speaking of science and philosophy, Aristotle was the greatest scientist of all time (arguably?) He worked in astronomy, meteorology, physics, geology, biology, and psychology. (Not to mention philosophy, logic, poetry, literary theory, rhetoric, politics, political theory, and training Alexander the Great…) Instead of treating the senses disparagingly (as have most people who have said that they wanted to “shun traditional dogmatisms,” the characterization of the Enlightenment of science, like the early Greek philosophers, Descartes, etc.), he used them, filling his Lyceum with specimens, engaging in experiments, etc.
Wah

August 18th, 2008 | 04:05

On the other hand, science is not static, and although some ideas like natural selection may have been a hypothesis when Darwin first came up with it, that does not mean it is still a hypothesis today. While I think Aristotle said something similar well before if I remember correctly, I can’t remember which work it was in, but he refers to a hypothesis that reads as natural selection almost word-for-word. But the difference is that he rejects it as an absolutely absurd hypothesis. However, there were other Greek philosophers who found the idea compelling and reasonable, and certainly much of what Aristotle taught scientifically has been shown to have been incomplete, or wrong. I mean, he’s probably the greatest scientist of all time, but commitment to his physics (and metaphysics) has caused many people many problems through the years.

My point is just that Aristotle wasn’t Darwin’s precursor (though, still, natural selection didn’t just magically spring forth from data in the 19th century; it was an idea that already had a history). Darwinism could only be absurd in Aristotle’s world; it took the context of Newton, Hegel, etc. to make Darwinism intelligible. Despite that there were several of his positions that were reasonable given limited knowledge at the time, “incomplete, or wrong” is putting it pretty nicely, eh? <== Non-smackdown smiley.

Further, we know Greece gave western civilization much art, philosophy and literature. Rome provided law and government. After, came modern science, efforts to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty enshrined in the documents of the many governments. Then, the view that nature was predictable and orderly arrived. But then the Christian belief that all humanity is a creation of God gave a foundation to the self-evident truth of “life,” “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness” and since people are made in the image of God they are valuable apart from their station of life, amount of wealth, or utility to society and in addition to people who are helped, educated, and protected simply because they are made in God’s image. Loss of these ideals would undoubtedly be a tragic loss to the well-being of humanity.

True, none of these things would have made sense if they hadn’t happened in the particular Christian society that they did, but the reintroduction of Greek thought and life had a determinative role in all these developments. (The exception being the care for the poor.) So, “equality” and “liberty” are Enlightened counterparts to Christian values, but they are not Christian values. Similarly, most of the Greeks hated scientific study, so you needed a Christian context in order to have the bravery to think that the world might be valuable in the way that a few Greeks (Aristotle, Archimedes) had imagined, but the New Science went beyond Christianity’s high humanism and tended to view the scientific endeavor as divine in its reach and knowledge.

Moreover, in Gibbon’s work, which is basically an attempt to write a history that is not based in official Church doctrine and is well-known as critical of Christianity, he views Christianity as sadly overturning a great culture that preceded it and after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, interestingly enough, it allowed for the over-Enlightened anti-Christians who decided to take the negative connotative view that “all religions exist for the purpose of social control.” But there are a lot of folks out there who are more than willing to accept the existence of Xianity, without calling it a plague or whatever, and make judgments from there. They just don’t get the press time that the loudmouths do. Because, well, the press is incompetent and my permanent boycott remains.

While I admit there’s good and bad in any opportunity, I mean, it was nice that they stopped feeding us to lions when all we were doing was seeking out the children and the sick that everyone else left for dead and taking care of them as our own. And it ended up producing what was in some respects a fascinatingly beautiful, complex society. But of course somewhere along the way we stopped being the kind of people that somebody would want to throw to the lions for taking in the children and the sick that everybody else left for dead; power and legitimacy can do that kind of thing to you. There are two poles of Christian work in the world — transformation and martyrdom — and so-called Constantinianism let us express one. Now Christians have got to prepare for the other.
starAtNight

August 18th, 2008 | 19:01

What makes Darwin intelligible for me is the application of a gradual changes idea to anything and everything naturally derived. Its so simple and elegant its beautiful. Shame on Aristotle for intellectualizing his way past such simple observation.

what makes Natural selection even more compelling is that the deeper sceince delves into the building blocks of physical matter, the more we find structures that support this theory. (Genetic mutation is something that Aristotle did not conceive though I’m sure he would have been facinated by the discovery of Deoxyribonucleic acids).
Wah

August 18th, 2008 | 22:25

Granted, Aristotle at some point trusted his “reason” a bit too much
Wah

August 18th, 2008 | 22:32

…for example,
Wah

August 18th, 2008 | 22:35

he presumed that a large object would fall more quickly than a small one
Wah

August 18th, 2008 | 22:38

…but.. when u ain’t [I had to make some grammatical changes due to wordpress errors] only composin’ da
Wah

August 18th, 2008 | 22:50

… Encyclopedia
Wah

August 18th, 2008 | 23:20

…Britannica but inventing the disciplines and doing all the scholarship that the Encyclopedia studies, there’s only so much you can do…
Wah

August 18th, 2008 | 23:34

… 1,000 years from now …
Wah

August 18th, 2008 | 23:54

… we’ll have plenty of comparable reasons to “mock” Darwin or Galileo, …
Wah

August 19th, 2008 | 00:07

… and perhaps the 20th century will be painted at the idyllic era in which some thinkers finally broke the oppressive chains of modernist tyranny and finally started to “think for themselves” instead of trusting Enlightenment dogma (the mindset in which science is currently adopting — post-enlightenment naturalism.)

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All