I used to be an atheist who believed that life forms adapted and evolved and went extinct, over long periods of time, because of the principle of the survival of the fittest in randomly changing conditions and environments. Now I believe that there must be an Intelligent Designer, because it occurred to me that my legs are exactly the right length to reach down to the ground, and so are the legs of most other folks. It requires too much faith to believe that's just due to chance.
I have a problem *_* " What about people who are born without legs...?" God has clearly intelligently designed them to be that way, as their bodies still reach down to the ground. You don't see people without legs hovering above the ground, do you?
I have a problem *_* "Sooooo....gravity?" Gravity is intelligently designed in combination with the resistance of the ground and the length of your legs. You would find it difficult to walk if your legs were too long and your feet sank below the level of the ground.
Brilliant. Religions of christians/islamists based on magic, sorcery, talking animals,giants,dragons, witches and the complete lack of any dinosaurs mentioned.
when robin was younger he used to go into bun shops and the staff knew all the filthy things hed been doing up in his room. also he doesnt go home because he doesnt like hugging his father
god is a product of humanity if there were no humans then who would argue over the origin . we created our deity to comfort us and be not affraid of death , because really when it comes down to it , were all still frightened children. who dont know anything for certain .
"I could understand speculation as long as we don't pretend that we are right. There is a line between I "think this could happen" and "despite having no evidece, I know this will happen" Your absolutely right. But with the current scope of our intelligence, and subtracting the possibility of discovery, that speculation is our limiter. So, the question how and why leaves science with a short fall, that cannot conclude whether there is 'more'.
@MalcolmAkner Unfortunately the foundations of religious ideas are built on something much more solid than idiocy. When you peel idiocy away you're left with one's monolithic emotional connection to the self and the world (for many these two are the same) which is ambivalent enough to recognize facts and reality and still displace them because of how much greater personal needs can be. The only thing you can do is point out which claims are grandiose and unfounded, and hopefully the little bit
(i was a little sarcastic about speaking from the heart..) i've been down the roads of research, i've heard most of your arguements, i've answered similar questions before in the past and it has led nowhere in terms of changing anyone's mind. You are mad and I am happy.
@MalcolmAkner And it's also worth pointing out that religious ideas tax us all to some degree, and that solipsism is one of the most difficult things to evade, even for some staunch atheists. The sense of self importance and wishful thinking isn't exclusive to fools, far from it, as evidenced by your own words "hopefully I will be there when it falls." Hopefully, yes, but for whom?
this can easily be answered to: this is correct that the chance for a combination is 1 to 32, however it is unspecified. However if you specify before the hand is shuffled, then whats the chance for a specific combination? This is the same case with universe. It was just one explosion (big bang) and then a sequence of ultra precise events and ultra precise laws came into existence. This what we call specifity, so I recommend you to read "Information Theory" and Design Induction by William Dembsk
Could you point to me the chemical/physical forces at molecular biology level which cause the cells to be formed? Also could you please let me know about (and BE SPECIFIC) which physical/chemical forces are involved at the bio-molecular level in the evolution of cells that lead to evolution of organs.
@Chuichupachichi Entropy applies to a closed system. Evolution and biology on earth is not a closed system. Evolution does not mean an increase in complexity or a decrease in chaos - although it can result in that.
Yes, I agree, that's my point. I would however appreciate the tiniest scintilla of intellectual honesty on the part of creationists. This is the sixth or seventh time I have put these questions out there: if creationists or IDers have any scientific or intellectual pretensions at all then the onus is on them to come forward and either answer these questions or concede that they can't be answered.
@BullInTheHeather1 1) In this case, the "designer" is implicit of "God". Since your question is inquiring of God in particular, is why one must remain consistent throughout the entire analysis of this question & one's answer. Consistent regarding the significance of the title God. By very definition of the title "God", he is by default, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc. When referring to God, this is the correct logic because "God" means particular things. Question #2 is the same thing
After reading what I wrote, I want to apologize. My comments were out of line. I have no excuse and im sorry I wrote that. Thanks for your sane response to my rude blatherings. If the world had more people like you, it would be a better place. Again, Im sorry for not writing what I did. Have a very Merry Christmas.
"just because something is very very unlikely does not mean it will not happen" The best example of that is dealing out a hand of cards. Or even better, shuffle a deck and then deal out every card in sequence. The chances of the cards coming out in that particular order are very, very small. Yet it happened. And you can do it time and time again. Different outcome, same tiny probability.
The way I see it, I think the big bang is impossible. Things don't create themselves. So we're really left with two logical answers: A: The universe is infinite, never began, never will end. or B: The universe is beyond our comprehension at this point. Many label the idea of a grand creator as completely fictitious, but essentially these would be the exact the attributes of such a being. If such a being were to exist, it would have to be infinite, as well as beyond comprehension.
Part2 In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
PART III I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City
One final point: if entropy can only increase and there can be no localised decreases, and if this therefore precludes the possibility of evolution taking place, then the same has to be true of every other reversal of entropic flow that we see around us - embryonic development doesn't exist; we don't develop from a foetus into a child; plants don't grow from seeds into their flowers or fruits, hurricanes and tornadoes are figments of our imagination and trees are impossible.
@wsewell12 1 is dodging the question, it doesn't address why they don't need to apply to him nor if it's possible to be "transcendental" and 2 is not an answer to the question at all. Omnipotence isn't a "how," it's a "how did he have the ability?" Like if god gave you a cookie and you said "how did you get this cookie?" and he said "omnipotence." The answer would be something like "I baked it" or "I made atoms appear from nowhere in the form of this cookie."
Psalms 139:7-10 "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." Matt 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Only possible w/an omnipresent god
I always get into long conversations with people about this stuff and I just don't stop like most thus pissing people off. You did show me that I was misinformed and confused about the big bang and evolution (which i conceded several times but you insist on bringing it up) and this is the only thing you've refuted.
@razioth Well, as I said before, I don't necessarily define supernatural as "magic" or "miraculous". Just merely something we couldn't comprehend yet. Scientists still don't understand the universe fully.
@MaximusArurealius You are hilarious. Please keep it up. Im sure Christians are very proud of intelligence and integrity you represented them as having. Bravo Maximus.
And I just wanted to add, like many others have, the point of contention regarding the debate on the existence of one or more deities (I'm going to be lazy and forgo explicitly defining what is meant by "deity" for the sake of the character limit) isn't that they do or do not exist, but rather that it is currently not explicitly proven either way, and that in the absence of credible evidence, the onus of proof is on those who are making the claim of existence.
Orrorin Tugenensis not again... oh well.. The sculpture looked neat though... I'll check more later... Does any1 here have the planet of the apes ultimate dvd collection?
You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How long would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an airplane naturally over time?It won't happen."Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation [the arrival of a new species].It is not a creative force as many people have suggested."(Daniel Brooks "A downward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science,24 September 1982, p. 1240)
to add to that, "If majority had ruled back in the day of Darwin, then we would be having a very different conversation right now." In fact the majority DID rule back Darwin in his days. Fortunately for Darwin, eversince an enormous ammount of evidence in favour of his view has been piling up with detail he could never have imagined.
Actually tons of funding goes into fields of research based on evolutionary precepts such as the development of cancer drugs. These fields are very lucrative due to their reliance on evolutionary concepts.
« a fact and a law is a "theory". » No. A theory is a comprehensive, consistent and well supported model comprised of laws, observations and hypotheses, explaining a specific set of observations. « an unproven idea is a "hypothesis" » No. A hypothesis is a testable claim. I think it's important to get these definitions down.
Damn, I cannot leave it be! The guy in the video says the universe is "16 billion years old" but we know now that it is 13.7 billion years old and that is final. It is not a minor detail to be off by several billion years, you know.: )
PART II ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
The Miller-Urey experiment has been done many times over the years with a number of different chemical possibilities for atmospheric composition and they always get amino acids. So yes, pretty damn close to "just appeared", and probably many times over before one reaction just kept happening.
even if only temporarily..."life". Flora's mechanism is photosynthesis & fauna's is metabolism. With these mechanisms energy is constructively worked. DNA information is also required as it dictates the organism's & their mechanism's forms which in turn, determine their functioning. Thus, the genetic information & the energy working mechanisms are what make possible the decreased degree of entropy, sufficiently to enable the organism's generation. Abio's postulation of prebiotic material
@Ozzyman200 It should also be noted that neither the big bang theory, nor the theory of evolution claim that something came from nothing (or that nothing came from nothing, whatever the hell that means). If you are under the impression they do claim these things, you need to look into the issue a little further.
"I have never seen the laws of physics suspend themselves, have fun proving that one." Well I don't really have to prove that. I have seen it myself. My life has been saved more than once with no explanation of how it could have happened. Both times I should have been dead. Somebody held that rock up until I got out from under it.
I saw that vid a while ago, but thanks for the recomendation anyway. Once again I'll assert that it can't be some sudden rush into the light, or they'll be blinded by fear of the unknown. Thats the entire reason for belief in god, to help explain away our fears of the unknown. Especially w/regards to death. But this vid is a good step in the right direction. But I still think there needs to be a more in depth stepping process to bring someone from out of the cave than what YT can provide.
Atheist Fred Hoyle reseached on carbon formation and the precise events in stars that lead to it....(oxygen is a later product)......This is what he said: "A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Yes, I do actually. I forgot how we even got into this discussion. Have you watched expelled yet? It's really good. Yeah, you soooo refuted all my points. (wait, i didn't have any points, i was just trying to piss you off...SUCCESS!)
@rypaz87 This is the definition of good arguments, thank you my good sir, you are one more dent in the wall of idiocy. Hopefully I will be there to see it fall.
Wsewell12 - I congratulate you for at least attempting to answer the questions although I still haven't received a reply from a creationist. Nevertheless, the two questions I asked were constructed explicitly for the purpose of smoking out examples of theological evasiveness and you have kindly obliged me. As LanceDirk says, "omnipotence" is no kind of answer to the 1st question...(cont.)
Magic man done it! This is a pretty good representation of what's happening in the debate between Science vs. Fairy Tale, though Mother goose tends to get more arrogant than Ince portrayed them.
Athough this is comedy it raises an excellent point in the definition of ID. Although ID was invented by frustrated Creationists as a cover for Creationism, ID is NOT Creationism. I reckon an ID Biology or Cosmology book would be exactly the same as the conventional science books but with a single sentence in the preface ..... "The following has been subjected to rigorous scientific method and was started by ^^^^^^"." Where ^^^^^^ represents a god or gods of your choice. Sorted..
Oh, no you misunderstood. I didn't mean "believe" in the sense of belief in a higher power. I meant that creationism vs. evolution is not a matter of belief, but one of evidence. Framing it as a conflict of belief systems is often a trick of creationists. I'm sorry, but I think I stated it rather clearly the first time.
For myself i'm not sure if there was anything before the big bang or not, but scientific opinion tends to be that time and space rapidly expanded from it, so time didn't exist before it...hence nothing did, but that could just be for our intents and purposes as we can't see outside of our 4 dimensions of this universe. If God works through Nature, then God still exists and still needs alot of explained, at least the Big Bang doesn't need worshipping or faith.
I'm not labeling anyone, its what they are. Like I said, read the editions of the creationist book "Of Pandas and People" before & after the Edwards V. Aguiliard decision ruling creationism unconstitutional. That is the moment creationism evolved into Intelligent Design. Its word for word the same except creator was replaced w/Intelligent Designer. Some places spell checker didn't catch everything, hence the typo in the new edition, "cdesign proponentsists" which gave them away for what they are
one thing you must understand is that evolution is not something you have to prove exists. Its easy to see how life can evolve. Its not just random mutation, thats part of it tho. Its also natural selection. Say two rabbits are running from a fox, the slower rabbit gets eaten and his genes stop there, the other gets away and makes lots of babies, passing on his faster skills. Thats a small example. Theres a lot more envolved.
@neo001x I dont know if this is true, but I've heard there is this thing on the internet, .. i think it's called "google".. from what i hear, you simply type in a persons name into "google", .. and almost as soon as you've typed it in, a whole list of information regarding that person comes up on the screen.
Can we agree that the universe is God's creation and that it was spoken into existence? That way we have we can say, the universe is the reality God created for us and in a literal sense, it is his word. He DID speak it into existence. Is this something YOU can agree to as far as your concept of God, the universe and everything?
« The rest of us became multi-celled, complex organisms. Supposedly 2 possess greater survivability? » Presumably, both multi celled organisms and the more ubiquitous single celled organisms were equally skilled in survival. Besides, the "unit of evolution" is the population. Competition does not occur globally, merely between variants of one archetype within a population.
Quantum Mechanics requires an observer or else the many functions that define an event would not collapse revealing a singular, the most likely function. This is because Quantum Mechanics is the study of GROUPS, not individual subatomic particles. Individual particles act like they are alive in that they make decisions and are unpredictable. Thus we must go to the study of Quantum Mechanincs wich is not perfect but works well in that we study the general behaviours. Thus we need an observer.
The universe was specified because there is only one combination among 1 in 10^10^123 which leads to life (don't cause it because thats a seperate probablity on top of that), and all other don't. So life is indeed a very very unique phenomena. However a shuffled deck of cards doesn't have anything special about it compared to another shuffled deck of cards. Those are different permutations of the same deck of cards.
And where you fail is in your ignorance of the fact that ID is a complete and established scientific theory, while creationism is something that has no strong evidence against it, yet has several strong evidences for it, science or not, doesn't matter. It is the most compelling and fitting explanation for observable reality.
@stickybelvedere As it happens, "solipsism" is dictionarydotcom's second most popular search today so I'll use their definition. Taken from their page, solipsism is considered to "be extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption." If you hold a mushroom trip as evidence of the existence of something "higher", then surely this is an indulgence of your own self absorbed feelings.
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Does it even matter? please visit my page for more info
"A bet or the owing of money is written down on paper, it's down for record." Yep, but you can't prove that such a contract doesn't exist. In a court of law you'd win, not because you can prove that you don't owe my any money but because I can't prove that you do. This example is not ridiculous, it demonstrates my point very well.
So, do you have the references for these studies -- published in peer-reviewed journals, of course? Or is this just something that your pastor told you?
There's a misunderstanding here. I meant that ID is an established theory in the sense that all the required parts that make a theory are present in it's system. I didn't mean established in the sense that it is widely accepted by the scientific community. Peer review will come when more and more scientists turn to honesty and deal with it, that is "peer review" it instead of dodging the real arguments by positing strawman scenarios as above.
"Some with massive jaws and others quite petite." Yes but they all have some sort of a chin, and muscles inside of it, this reserves extra brain space and allows for greater control of the lips to create a more audible sound and give us greater control of our words.
I used to be an atheist who believed that life forms adapted and evolved and went extinct, over long periods of time, because of the principle of the survival of the fittest in randomly changing conditions and environments.
Now I believe that there must be an Intelligent Designer, because it occurred to me that my legs are exactly the right length to reach down to the ground, and so are the legs of most other folks. It requires too much faith to believe that's just due to chance.
An undeniably powerful argument.
What about people who are born without legs...?
-_-
I have a problem *_* " What about people who are born without legs...?"
God has clearly intelligently designed them to be that way, as their bodies still reach down to the ground.
You don't see people without legs hovering above the ground, do you?
Sooooo....gravity? -_-
I have a problem *_*
"Sooooo....gravity?"
Gravity is intelligently designed in combination with the resistance of the ground and the length of your legs. You would find it difficult to walk if your legs were too long and your feet sank below the level of the ground.
The best video I've seen on Independent Design. Nothing cuts through the crap so fast.
If intelligence was required to create complex things that lead to intelligence than what created the intelligent designer's intelligence?
I head it was dirt. So convincing!
you did.
Another magic man done it. Maybe magic man's dad.
@@TomGallagherSuperboyBeyond ‘papa’ tell papa truthhh
Evolution, knowledge passed on and on
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
"He's tufty, he's lovely, he's lovely and he's tufty!!"
Brilliant. Religions of christians/islamists based on magic, sorcery, talking animals,giants,dragons, witches and the complete lack of any dinosaurs mentioned.
Totally awesome!!
when robin was younger he used to go into bun shops and the staff knew all the filthy things hed been doing up in his room. also he doesnt go home because he doesnt like hugging his father
The biggest problem with it is that it's imprecise. Creationists don't acknowledge that unicellular organisms turned into multicellular organisms.
god is a product of humanity if there were no humans then who would argue over the origin . we created our deity to comfort us and be not affraid of death , because really when it comes down to it , were all still frightened children. who dont know anything for certain .
RPS34V wow
"I could understand speculation as long as we don't pretend that we are right. There is a line between I "think this could happen" and "despite having no evidece, I know this will happen"
Your absolutely right. But with the current scope of our intelligence, and subtracting the possibility of discovery, that speculation is our limiter.
So, the question how and why leaves science with a short fall, that cannot conclude whether there is 'more'.
AHAHAHAHA!! "Try taking mind altering drugs and tell me that there is no God".
@MalcolmAkner Unfortunately the foundations of religious ideas are built on something much more solid than idiocy. When you peel idiocy away you're left with one's monolithic emotional connection to the self and the world (for many these two are the same) which is ambivalent enough to recognize facts and reality and still displace them because of how much greater personal needs can be. The only thing you can do is point out which claims are grandiose and unfounded, and hopefully the little bit
(i was a little sarcastic about speaking from the heart..) i've been down the roads of research, i've heard most of your arguements, i've answered similar questions before in the past and it has led nowhere in terms of changing anyone's mind. You are mad and I am happy.
I love Robin Ince - everyone should be entitled to their own beliefs, but you have to admit Mr Ince puts his point across very amusingly.
You are so eloquent and convincing.
I am glad that you are not mad. I think there's more common ground than we are both willing to admit.
wish comedy cuts was on steaming service or youtube
Great stuff Robin Ince.
@MalcolmAkner And it's also worth pointing out that religious ideas tax us all to some degree, and that solipsism is one of the most difficult things to evade, even for some staunch atheists. The sense of self importance and wishful thinking isn't exclusive to fools, far from it, as evidenced by your own words "hopefully I will be there when it falls." Hopefully, yes, but for whom?
What kind of force? Like consciousness- driven force. Like the force behind "who am I"?
this can easily be answered to: this is correct that the chance for a combination is 1 to 32, however it is unspecified. However if you specify before the hand is shuffled, then whats the chance for a specific combination? This is the same case with universe. It was just one explosion (big bang) and then a sequence of ultra precise events and ultra precise laws came into existence. This what we call specifity, so I recommend you to read "Information Theory" and Design Induction by William Dembsk
Brilliant video, btw.
As a school teacher of 12-14 year olds I find my pupils capacity for learning and wit far exceeds your own.
The dude in the background is a legend
Magic man done it! Cant stop saying that at every possible situation after this :)
Brilliant video XD
Could you point to me the chemical/physical forces at molecular biology level which cause the cells to be formed? Also could you please let me know about (and BE SPECIFIC) which physical/chemical forces are involved at the bio-molecular level in the evolution of cells that lead to evolution of organs.
@Chuichupachichi Entropy applies to a closed system.
Evolution and biology on earth is not a closed system. Evolution does not mean an increase in complexity or a decrease in chaos - although it can result in that.
Haha. This is awesome.
Ok, thanks! Now "Magic Man" by Heart is stuck in my head!
Yes, I agree, that's my point. I would however appreciate the tiniest scintilla of intellectual honesty on the part of creationists. This is the sixth or seventh time I have put these questions out there: if creationists or IDers have any scientific or intellectual pretensions at all then the onus is on them to come forward and either answer these questions or concede that they can't be answered.
@BullInTheHeather1
1) In this case, the "designer" is implicit of "God". Since your question is inquiring of God in particular, is why one must remain consistent throughout the entire analysis of this question & one's answer. Consistent regarding the significance of the title God. By very definition of the title "God", he is by default, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc. When referring to God, this is the correct logic because "God" means particular things. Question #2 is the same thing
After reading what I wrote, I want to apologize. My comments were out of line. I have no excuse and im sorry I wrote that. Thanks for your sane response to my rude blatherings.
If the world had more people like you, it would be a better place. Again, Im sorry for not writing what I did.
Have a very Merry Christmas.
"just because something is very very unlikely does not mean it will not happen"
The best example of that is dealing out a hand of cards. Or even better, shuffle a deck and then deal out every card in sequence. The chances of the cards coming out in that particular order are very, very small. Yet it happened. And you can do it time and time again. Different outcome, same tiny probability.
The way I see it, I think the big bang is impossible. Things don't create themselves.
So we're really left with two logical answers:
A: The universe is infinite, never began, never will end.
or
B: The universe is beyond our comprehension at this point.
Many label the idea of a grand creator as completely fictitious, but essentially these would be the exact the attributes of such a being.
If such a being were to exist, it would have to be infinite, as well as beyond comprehension.
Part2
In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
PART III
I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City
One final point: if entropy can only increase and there can be no localised decreases, and if this therefore precludes the possibility of evolution taking place, then the same has to be true of every other reversal of entropic flow that we see around us - embryonic development doesn't exist; we don't develop from a foetus into a child; plants don't grow from seeds into their flowers or fruits, hurricanes and tornadoes are figments of our imagination and trees are impossible.
@wsewell12 1 is dodging the question, it doesn't address why they don't need to apply to him nor if it's possible to be "transcendental" and 2 is not an answer to the question at all. Omnipotence isn't a "how," it's a "how did he have the ability?" Like if god gave you a cookie and you said "how did you get this cookie?" and he said "omnipotence." The answer would be something like "I baked it" or "I made atoms appear from nowhere in the form of this cookie."
Loved it!
Here, Here, well spoken Bruce ! :-)
Psalms 139:7-10
"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me."
Matt 18:20
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Only possible w/an omnipresent god
I always get into long conversations with people about this stuff and I just don't stop like most thus pissing people off. You did show me that I was misinformed and confused about the big bang and evolution (which i conceded several times but you insist on bringing it up) and this is the only thing you've refuted.
Absolutely great.
great! very well said!
Hooray for Robin Ince.
@razioth Well, as I said before, I don't necessarily define supernatural as "magic" or "miraculous". Just merely something we couldn't comprehend yet. Scientists still don't understand the universe fully.
@MaximusArurealius You are hilarious. Please keep it up. Im sure Christians are very proud of intelligence and integrity you represented them as having. Bravo Maximus.
And I just wanted to add, like many others have, the point of contention regarding the debate on the existence of one or more deities (I'm going to be lazy and forgo explicitly defining what is meant by "deity" for the sake of the character limit) isn't that they do or do not exist, but rather that it is currently not explicitly proven either way, and that in the absence of credible evidence, the onus of proof is on those who are making the claim of existence.
Orrorin Tugenensis
not again... oh well..
The sculpture looked neat though...
I'll check more later...
Does any1 here have the planet of the apes ultimate dvd collection?
You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How long would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an airplane naturally over time?It won't happen."Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation [the arrival of a new species].It is not a creative force as many people have suggested."(Daniel Brooks "A downward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science,24 September 1982, p. 1240)
to add to that,
"If majority had ruled back in the day of Darwin, then we would be having a very different conversation right now."
In fact the majority DID rule back Darwin in his days.
Fortunately for Darwin, eversince an enormous ammount of evidence in favour of his view has been piling up with detail he could never have imagined.
"My grandmother used to sprinkle it on practically everything in the 1940's, including on bedding."
That explains a lot.
Actually tons of funding goes into fields of research based on evolutionary precepts such as the development of cancer drugs. These fields are very lucrative due to their reliance on evolutionary concepts.
« a fact and a law is a "theory". »
No. A theory is a comprehensive, consistent and well supported model comprised of laws, observations and hypotheses, explaining a specific set of observations.
« an unproven idea is a "hypothesis" »
No. A hypothesis is a testable claim.
I think it's important to get these definitions down.
Damn, I cannot leave it be! The guy in the video says the universe is "16 billion years old" but we know now that it is 13.7 billion years old and that is final. It is not a minor detail to be off by several billion years, you know.: )
If this is the content that ITV 2 were showing back in the day then it's no wonder they descended to the level of Love Island.
@BadgerOStripeyOne
which part?
RUclipss my first stop when it comes to researching science. Apparently all of the worlds greates minds have posted below...
PART II
...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
After all, more important than your overlook is what kind of person does your overlook make you.
The Miller-Urey experiment has been done many times over the years with a number of different chemical possibilities for atmospheric composition and they always get amino acids. So yes, pretty damn close to "just appeared", and probably many times over before one reaction just kept happening.
even if only temporarily..."life". Flora's mechanism is photosynthesis & fauna's is metabolism. With these mechanisms energy is constructively worked. DNA information is also required as it dictates the organism's & their mechanism's forms which in turn, determine their functioning. Thus, the genetic information & the energy working mechanisms are what make possible the decreased degree of entropy, sufficiently to enable the organism's generation.
Abio's postulation of prebiotic material
agreed, Gervais is F***ing hilarious.
I can't say that I've seen any of Robin Ince's stuff though. Is any of it on here?
Saw him last night! was totally wicked!
@Ozzyman200 It should also be noted that neither the big bang theory, nor the theory of evolution claim that something came from nothing (or that nothing came from nothing, whatever the hell that means). If you are under the impression they do claim these things, you need to look into the issue a little further.
"I have never seen the laws of physics suspend themselves, have fun proving that one."
Well I don't really have to prove that. I have seen it myself. My life has been saved more than once with no explanation of how it could have happened. Both times I should have been dead. Somebody held that rock up until I got out from under it.
I saw that vid a while ago, but thanks for the recomendation anyway.
Once again I'll assert that it can't be some sudden rush into the light, or they'll be blinded by fear of the unknown. Thats the entire reason for belief in god, to help explain away our fears of the unknown. Especially w/regards to death.
But this vid is a good step in the right direction. But I still think there needs to be a more in depth stepping process to bring someone from out of the cave than what YT can provide.
WHAT KIND OF FORKS??
In the beginning BANG...great theory......i love it
Atheist Fred Hoyle reseached on carbon formation and the precise events in stars that lead to it....(oxygen is a later product)......This is what he said:
"A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Yes, I do actually. I forgot how we even got into this discussion. Have you watched expelled yet? It's really good. Yeah, you soooo refuted all my points. (wait, i didn't have any points, i was just trying to piss you off...SUCCESS!)
@rypaz87 This is the definition of good arguments, thank you my good sir, you are one more dent in the wall of idiocy. Hopefully I will be there to see it fall.
Wsewell12 - I congratulate you for at least attempting to answer the questions although I still haven't received a reply from a creationist. Nevertheless, the two questions I asked were constructed explicitly for the purpose of smoking out examples of theological evasiveness and you have kindly obliged me. As LanceDirk says, "omnipotence" is no kind of answer to the 1st question...(cont.)
Magic man done it! This is a pretty good representation of what's happening in the debate between Science vs. Fairy Tale, though Mother goose tends to get more arrogant than Ince portrayed them.
I lold with tremendous fervor at this jolly prankster.
Athough this is comedy it raises an excellent point in the definition of ID. Although ID was invented by frustrated Creationists as a cover for Creationism, ID is NOT Creationism. I reckon an ID Biology or Cosmology book would be exactly the same as the conventional science books but with a single sentence in the preface ..... "The following has been subjected to rigorous scientific method and was started by ^^^^^^"."
Where ^^^^^^ represents a god or gods of your choice. Sorted..
Oh, no you misunderstood. I didn't mean "believe" in the sense of belief in a higher power.
I meant that creationism vs. evolution is not a matter of belief, but one of evidence. Framing it as a conflict of belief systems is often a trick of creationists.
I'm sorry, but I think I stated it rather clearly the first time.
For myself i'm not sure if there was anything before the big bang or not, but scientific opinion tends to be that time and space rapidly expanded from it, so time didn't exist before it...hence nothing did, but that could just be for our intents and purposes as we can't see outside of our 4 dimensions of this universe.
If God works through Nature, then God still exists and still needs alot of explained, at least the Big Bang doesn't need worshipping or faith.
i hate that youtube now hides anything with 6 or more thumbs down!
I want to read the Haiku.
I'm not labeling anyone, its what they are. Like I said, read the editions of the creationist book "Of Pandas and People" before & after the Edwards V. Aguiliard decision ruling creationism unconstitutional. That is the moment creationism evolved into Intelligent Design. Its word for word the same except creator was replaced w/Intelligent Designer. Some places spell checker didn't catch everything, hence the typo in the new edition, "cdesign proponentsists" which gave them away for what they are
Yeah, "ooh a magic man did it" is real sophisticated humour. Sarcasm is the highest form of wit.
one thing you must understand is that evolution is not something you have to prove exists. Its easy to see how life can evolve. Its not just random mutation, thats part of it tho. Its also natural selection. Say two rabbits are running from a fox, the slower rabbit gets eaten and his genes stop there, the other gets away and makes lots of babies, passing on his faster skills. Thats a small example. Theres a lot more envolved.
@neo001x I dont know if this is true, but I've heard there is this thing on the internet, .. i think it's called "google".. from what i hear, you simply type in a persons name into "google", .. and almost as soon as you've typed it in, a whole list of information regarding that person comes up on the screen.
question? what is a "quesion" thanks .
Can we agree that the universe is God's creation and that it was spoken into existence? That way we have we can say, the universe is the reality God created for us and in a literal sense, it is his word. He DID speak it into existence.
Is this something YOU can agree to as far as your concept of God, the universe and everything?
nice one!!!
« The rest of us became multi-celled, complex organisms. Supposedly 2 possess greater survivability? »
Presumably, both multi celled organisms and the more ubiquitous single celled organisms were equally skilled in survival. Besides, the "unit of evolution" is the population. Competition does not occur globally, merely between variants of one archetype within a population.
Quantum Mechanics requires an observer or else the many functions that define an event would not collapse revealing a singular, the most likely function. This is because Quantum Mechanics is the study of GROUPS, not individual subatomic particles. Individual particles act like they are alive in that they make decisions and are unpredictable. Thus we must go to the study of Quantum Mechanincs wich is not perfect but works well in that we study the general behaviours. Thus we need an observer.
you are right, the cake is bad. in forensics, you know there was a murderer without working backwards. did you get CSI down under?
The universe was specified because there is only one combination among 1 in 10^10^123 which leads to life (don't cause it because thats a seperate probablity on top of that), and all other don't. So life is indeed a very very unique phenomena. However a shuffled deck of cards doesn't have anything special about it compared to another shuffled deck of cards. Those are different permutations of the same deck of cards.
I'll go for that. Although Yahweh was a bit more into wine was he not? Which god would choose beer as the corner stone of our faith in him/her?
And where you fail is in your ignorance of the fact that ID is a complete and established scientific theory, while creationism is something that has no strong evidence against it, yet has several strong evidences for it, science or not, doesn't matter. It is the most compelling and fitting explanation for observable reality.
@stickybelvedere As it happens, "solipsism" is dictionarydotcom's second most popular search today so I'll use their definition. Taken from their page, solipsism is considered to "be extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption." If you hold a mushroom trip as evidence of the existence of something "higher", then surely this is an indulgence of your own self absorbed feelings.
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Does it even matter?
please visit my page for more info
"A bet or the owing of money is written down on paper, it's down for record."
Yep, but you can't prove that such a contract doesn't exist. In a court of law you'd win, not because you can prove that you don't owe my any money but because I can't prove that you do. This example is not ridiculous, it demonstrates my point very well.
So, do you have the references for these studies -- published in peer-reviewed journals, of course? Or is this just something that your pastor told you?
There's a misunderstanding here. I meant that ID is an established theory in the sense that all the required parts that make a theory are present in it's system. I didn't mean established in the sense that it is widely accepted by the scientific community. Peer review will come when more and more scientists turn to honesty and deal with it, that is "peer review" it instead of dodging the real arguments by positing strawman scenarios as above.
"Some with massive jaws and others quite petite."
Yes but they all have some sort of a chin, and muscles inside of it, this reserves extra brain space and allows for greater control of the lips to create a more audible sound and give us greater control of our words.
not true. but you get your science education through comedians.
Great source of undisputed knowledge.