Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No You are failing to understand the way nature works, and what has been developed by evolution: e.g the hexagon -shape as a useful structural formation or incremental growth leads to pleasing shapes that Humans can so easily interpret as Designed. Oh and coincidental resemblances like galactic spirals and shell -spirals which are seen as Significant.
I'll leave it to those who understand mathematics better than I do, but the video seems to be one of those animating mathematical laws sto make them look Designed, just as I/D animated the Genetic process to make it look like a machine.
These arguments are either failure of imagination or deliberate misrepresentation.
And even if a case could be made for Design, where does that get religion? You may be happy to fool yourself, but it no longer fools us.
P.s an irrelevant btw...I recall old Eusebius (still a Good bad example after all this time...repeatedly posting a Creationist video long after it had been repeatedly debunked.
People's interpretation of the OT is up to them.
The OT is called old for a reason.
God's word is always written by the hand of man. Every thinking person is free to interpret where the hand of man needs filtering out.
The only Truth that Mythology of any kind teaches us is Man's liking for inventing fairy stories where he doesn't have the actual answers. It's time we grew out of that.
Is it possible? Are there eight year old children in hell right now? Here's a scripture to ponder:
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.
—2 Chronicles 36:9
What say ye, Christians..
Ridiculous question.
Also, hell is not a place of eternal torment, scriptures of hell are Jewish idioms that Gentiles don't understand. Hell is the outer court of Gentiles.
Yup, there is order naturally occuring in nature. Numbers demonstrate that, no 'design' required. That sunflower pattern is awesome though. In real life there would be imperfections. The sunflower in the video is not a real sunflower.
No You are failing to understand the way nature works, and what has been developed by evolution: e.g the hexagon -shape as a useful structural formation or incremental growth leads to pleasing shapes that Humans can so easily interpret as Designed. Oh and coincidental resemblances like galactic spirals and shell -spirals which are seen as Significant.
I'll leave it to those who understand mathematics better than I do, but the video seems to be one of those animating mathematical laws sto make them look Designed, just as I/D animated the Genetic process to make it look like a machine.
These arguments are either failure of imagination or deliberate misrepresentation.
And even if a case could be made for Design, where does that get religion? You may be happy to fool yourself, but it no longer fools us.
P.s an irrelevant btw...I recall old Eusebius (still a Good bad example after all this time...repeatedly posting a Creationist video long after it had been repeatedly debunked.
The video shows how nature works.
You don't need to be a math expert to recognize fibonacci sequence running through everything living and inanimate.
I don't have any religion.
The only Truth that Mythology of any kind teaches us is Man's liking for inventing fairy stories where he doesn't have the actual answers. It's time we grew out of that.
That's your opinion, which should not be confused with truth. They are very distinct things. Occasionally colliding
When I look around I do not see any 'design'. I see only evolution in progress.
?
Look again, most physicists accept design in the physics of the universe.
They dislike it but aren't about to ignore the brute fact .
All the physicists interviewed are atheists, plus Dawkins. He concedes what the physicists believe.
The video shows how nature works.
You don't need to be a math expert to recognize fibonacci sequence running through everything living and inanimate.
I don't have any religion.
The Fibonacci series is - as I recall from a long time back - we could look at it if you want - fiddled to look more designed and less natural than it is.
303 guy makes the point. These ID videos have to fake the images to look mechanical -make. In actuality they are regulat but mot mechanically so, and can form patters, but the result of regular growth, not design.
Ok, no religion. I was confusing you with someone way back who debated with me on Bible discrepancy.
So Godfaith, then, using ID as the 'evidence'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
That's your opinion, which should not be confused with truth. They are very distinct things. Occasionally colliding
It's yours too, unless you think that Viracocha, Krishna, Tara, Zeus, Yahweh, Kwannon and Osiris are all true. If you say they are all myth - then you agree with me. If you say they are all myth except one, that's your Opninon, unless you can give good reason for it.
Look again, most physicists accept design in the physics of the universe.
They dislike it but aren't about to ignore the brute fact .
All the physicists interviewed are atheists, plus Dawkins. He concedes what the physicists believe.
You'll find that 'design' is natural design. Often they can explain how the natural design works. a flower calyx or a mollusc shell.
These cosmological constants are a question of course, but not an answer. Could it have come about for natural reasons (By Chance is a misrepresentation of the argument by creationists or at least I/D - believers, to strawman the actual argument) or by someone designing it? Like other questions like 'what made consciousness? What made cosmic matter? What so NDE's mean?' These are question that require an explanation. They do not validate the claim 'Must be God! There is no other possible explanation!". This is false, biased and faith -based Thinking.
It is A priori -Godfaith (whether it is a non religion -specific creator or the god of a particular religion) that skews your thinking. It assumes an intention before the fact, and that the fact matches the intention cannot be by chance. But if it was not planned in advance, then what it turns out to be is no evidence of planning.
It's a false argument that we are the result of chance. The evidence is that we are indeed the result of 'Chance' in the sense of not being planned in advance - it is the result of very particular evolutionary processes, not the 'whirlwind in a junkyard nonsensical strawman analogy of the creationists.
Let me give you an analogy. You predict that a handful of stones will fall in a particular pattersn and the do. Chances of that happening by acident? Astonomical. Unbelievable. If there is no predicted patters - chances of them falling in whatever patters they fall in? 1/1.
So the talk of 'constants' being within one or two percent begs the question - one or two percent of what? A planned requirement thatthey are near? But if there is no pre -planned figure, then what turned out to work produced particular results and there is nothing remarkable about it.
That there is one particular Constant without which the universe would be sterile is a question. One ID apologists said that all the others have been explained, but not that one.
But if it is explained, then I/D has nothing. What's the speed of light? Is that exact, or within a percent? Is it true to say that if it was different, nothing would work? Or if it was different, it work but work differently.
ID apologists rush to claim unaswered question as Proof of a God before the explanations are know.
They do this because of assuming a god to begin with. That is why they are biased, illogical and wrongheaded. And they sooner they realise that the better.
Now you'll notice that I haven't tried to debunk the video. I haven't accused this or that quoted physicist or cosmologist of being a fool or a creationist. But I can see some question about what they say, and they may ask the questions too.
But like the 'Dawkins sees design' quote - which I know was Natural design, not Intelligent design - I know vids like this can misrepresent by quoteming.
Lastly, if the evidence point unequivocally to a Creative mind, I'll accept that is where it points, just as Anthony Flew did. I would then become an irreligious theist, (or deist) just as he did. And I'd still be looking to roll back the pernicious influence of organised religion, just as you should be if as you say you are not religious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
btw...I recall old Eusebius (still a Good bad example after all this time...repeatedly posting a Creationist video long after it had been repeatedly debunked.
