Based on Matthew's reccommendation I had a look at the video, & I've rarely seen such a mish-mash of ill-informed opinion in my life.
Disclaimer-- I'm a firm believer in Intelligent Design, but I find the Young Earth Creationist dogma to be beyond ridiculous.
I'll deal with the first 5 minutes of the video. I assume the rest is similar.
"Nothing produces nothing." No argument there.
"Scientists are making all kinds of discoveries that support Creationism." Sorta true, but most of the scientists themselves don't see it that way, & they get irritated when you point it out. V. few subscribe to the Rare Earth hypothesis, which the Dimond Bros. obviously support. Most scientists believe-- or at least they say they believe-- that habitable planets are relatively common. That makes it fairly strange, to my mind, that in the on-line Exoplanets Catalog where they show approximately 30 "Earthlike" planets at last count, about 27 of them are "Earthlike" only by a definition that defies the clear meaning of words. Most are super-massive by Earth standards, meaning they've got strong to v. strong gravity. Many are so hot that it's doubtful that water could exist other than as steam. And so forth. (BTW-- I agree with the Rare Earth hypothesis, but not for the reasons given in the video.)
"Our Sun is a highly stable star, by galactic standards." True, & a good thing.
"Other galaxies similar to ours have hundreds of thousands or more years' worth of supernova remnants, but we can observe only about 7000 years' worth of supernova remnants in our galaxy. This means the Milky Way is only 6000 to 7000 years old."
No, it doesn't. 1st, we can clearly see into other galaxies, since for most of the distance there's no dust. But our view of most of our own galaxy is highly obscured by interstellar dust, nebulae, star clusters, stellar illumination, & so forth.
2d, in particular we can't see very much on the other side of the Galactic Core at all.
And 3d, our galaxy could equally be just a relatively stable galaxy-- not a young one-- with fewer novae than average.
Also, if there were more supernovae remnants in the Milky Way then we very likely wouldn't be here to worry about it, b/c some of them would be much closer to Earth. A single supernova within thousands-- perhaps tens of thousands-- of lightyears could be enough to sterilize the Earth.
"The Earth receives just the right amount of heat from the Sun for life to exist." The implication is that the Sun is just the right size to produce just the right amount of heat. But heat is a function of distance as well as atmosphere. It would be possible to place a planet at the right distance from a star that's ½ as bright as the Sun, or 10× as bright, or anything in between, or to vary its atmosphere to give an even wider range..
"If atmospheric oxygen on Earth was only a few percent higher then life on Earth couldn't exist." ...but it was. Studies have shown that for most of the Mesozoic, oxygen levels were about 1½× higher than now, but then during the 2d half of the Cretaceous (100 million years ago) they dropped to around modern levels, but ~5 million years ago they rose again. The thing is, these changes usually happen gradually, & species adapt.
That's all I had time for. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but Bro. Dimond is an enthusiast who twists the facts to fit his theories whenever it suits him to do so.
Topic: Evidence for God (Read 6987 times)