Rod Adams, host of TPN’s Atomic Show, joins me today to talk about nuclear energy vs solar and religion vs science.
Don’t forget to make use of my new comments line – +613 9016 9699.
If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure you don’t miss future episodes by subscribing to our feed and leave us a voice comment!
- Subscribe to TPN::G’day World by Email
- If you use iTunes, click here.
- If you use another aggregator, grab our RSS feed here.
- If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read this description in Wikipedia.
The G’Day World Theme Song is “Save Me†by The Napoleon Blown Aparts.
Evolution is about adaptability to the surrounding environment and about intelligent selection. Living creatures evolve by adjusting and by using the skills they have at their disposal to survive. Not every mutation in the genome has to end up in yellow eyes or two tails. It could be simple things like height. If a certain environment demands only tall species you get a giraffe and the ones that couldn’t reach the tree died childless. It’s the simplest example possible! I really do not understand how you can compare a mobile phone to a human being and tell somebody that both needed a creator. Phones do not reproduce and are dead! I hope everyone agrees with me on the dead thing… If people need a creator let’s all stop reproducing until he/she creates more of us.
I am still puzzled that religious people can twist most of their religion, come up with a creator and say that the atmosphere of a supper is equal to evidence.
All the best, Cam!
P.S. You have a broken link on the front site for the better world podcast: betterworKd.thepodcastnetwork.com
Hey cam, well done with your discussion with Rod. You had some good responses and he was really relying on the same information that most intelligent christians give out.
I have a best mate who is christian and one who is muslim and we all sit down on a friday night over a few beers and debate on the issues of religion and god. i have learnt by listening to you and from reading dawkins how i can rationally and calmly express my side and i must say that i have almost turned my christian mate around. My muslim mate however is a tougher nut to crack (there beliefs are so ingrained and so full-on its hard to get thru).
But the best thing, like with your mate Rod is that they are open to discussion and that is what its all about. So all we need to do is convert these sort of people and kill all the evangelists and fundamentalists haha!
Keep fighting the good fight cam.
Rob, thanks mate, although I think I’ve a long way to go with my debating skills. I still get too emotionally caught up in the discussion. I need to learn to be more calm and controlled.
Ralf – well said sir. Thanks for the tip on the broken link too, we’ll get onto it!
I agree with Rod Adams (but hey Cam that should be no surprise to you).
I reckon he had you on the bac k foot there cam a couple of times 🙂
yeah? on which points?
Cam,
Just in General. The point is that Rod sat back and gave you the courtesy of letting you make your point. Time and again I heard you talk over the top of him. If you are so sure of your arguement, it shouldnt make any diference to you what he says. To this end, getting emotive doesnt add to your arguement, in fact it detracts from it ESPECIALLY if you are try to argue against the existance of god from a purely rationalist perspective.
J
yeah I’ll cop that last bit on the chin. I do tend to get very emotional during these discussions. Not sure if I can stop myself actually. I get worked up. But I really hate people who talk over the top of other people and I have to learn to bite my tongue. Thanks for reminding me!
No probs mate. I get worked up even quicker than you do, thats why I refuse to enter into the debate in real life. In the past all that has happened is that I get worked up and wind up coming across like some right wing religious nutbag, and bronze age mythological deity knows that we have far too many of them already.
One thing though Cam, IF I see you in the afterlife, I hereby reserve exclusive ‘I told you so’ rights 🙂
Cheers
J
John, if you see me in the afterlife, I’ll buy the beers, okay?
Rolf:
“Intelligent selection” as you describe indicates to me that there is some kind of intelligence that is making the choices. I guess the other possibility – which seems rather far fetched to me – is that primitive organisms figures out that they really wanted circulatory systems, then perhaps they chose to breed with others that had mutated the ability to consume food, then perhaps down the road one of them developed fur, another a way to maintain body temperature, etc.
I used human beings as one example of complex order that seems to me to have been designed, but we are only a tiny part of the incredible variety of creation that exists today.
To me, the knowledge that living creatures can reproduce, grow, heal themselves, and adapt to their environment leads me to wonder and respect for the creator – mere humans are not yet close to creating things from scratch that can accomplish those feats even though we are trying hard and we understand a good deal about chemistry, physics and biology.
Cam, COOL !!, I will look fwd to that
J
Just a point about nuclear debate. As was mentioned we’re all pretty sure that a lot of government decisions are based around keeping the fossil fuel industry bubbling along and the thought of change is always difficult until you’ve made the change then we get used to it and the thought of going back seems stupid. One day I hope we look back on this period of getting off our addiction as amusing and shameful. Around 1890 that black goo that came out of the ground had little use, made a little kerosene for lights not much else and the horse would never be replaced anyway. And a century or two earlier that coal stuff seemed pretty odd and unnecessary as there was plenty of wood. Now we think those ideas quant at best.
If we used our intelligence to explore the full extent I’m sure that we could use other forms of energy in ways we can’t imagine. We have to be prepared to spend the money, do the work, get creative and see were it will lead us.
CSIRO is developing new exciting solar panels to overcome many of the old arguments. Why not put a set of these equivalent to the homes consumption on every house to power industry during the day and draw from the grid to supply night time use.
If we need the money to fund it, that’s easy the current war to keep the oil flowing is sitting on… Let me check… Oh here it is… $429,745,950,133 and clocking up another $10,000 every 2.5 seconds. Do you think we might be able to solve a few problems and make a few dreams happen with that!
Ian:
If the solar panels are so exciting, would you care to enlighten me about their cost, efficiency, maintenance requirements, and ultimate disposal?
If they are only going to supply the home’s power, how are they going to provide industrial power?
What do you propose should power the grid at night? Do you think that CO2 emitted then does not matter?