Presidential Candidate Mimics A Sex Act
Society & Culture4 mins ago
Information Enigma.
55 Answers
YouTube - Information Enigma.
This proves the impossibility of evolution by random change and natural selection, but rather the imperative of Intelligent Design.
The Great Mind that created the universe, that is, God.
Would you spend twenty minutes or so watching it, and then express your opinion, or offer an alternative explanation for the conclusions presented?
Thank you.
This proves the impossibility of evolution by random change and natural selection, but rather the imperative of Intelligent Design.
The Great Mind that created the universe, that is, God.
Would you spend twenty minutes or so watching it, and then express your opinion, or offer an alternative explanation for the conclusions presented?
Thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You know what. I don't believe in any god.
However if there were one I still wouldn't care.
If god existed as depicted by Christianity in particular then it is a turd of the highest order and is not worthy of my time, effort or respect.
Any entity, human or otherwise, that demands to be unconditional accepted as the arbiter of everything and demand love and worship is ego of a magnitude that is not healthy.
Dead is dead and better than slavery with a smile.
However if there were one I still wouldn't care.
If god existed as depicted by Christianity in particular then it is a turd of the highest order and is not worthy of my time, effort or respect.
Any entity, human or otherwise, that demands to be unconditional accepted as the arbiter of everything and demand love and worship is ego of a magnitude that is not healthy.
Dead is dead and better than slavery with a smile.
Had I the enthusiasm to discuss this in depth, and pull apart any disagreeing video arguments/claims, then I'd watch it. But as it is I don't consider I should have someone else pull my strings and get me to watch something for 20 minutes simply because they say so: something that I've no faith would convince.
I think the correct response is to allow the enthusiast to bring any arguments from the video, that they consider convincing, to the thread for discussion.
I think the correct response is to allow the enthusiast to bring any arguments from the video, that they consider convincing, to the thread for discussion.
Theland, I watched it. Your man is offering an argument that doesn’t stack up. He says “According to modern evolutionary theory new proteins and new forms of animal life arrive through random genetic mutations sifted by natural selection, but in an alphabetic test or a section of computer code random changes typically degrade meaning of functionality and ultimately generate gibberish”. Whilst that is, in most instances, probably accurate, it doesn’t definitively preclude the possibility that some random genetic mutations succeed. He talks about the improbability of his hypothetical thief opening his hypothetical bicycle lock in the ‘time available to the evolutionary process’, but why does he impose a time limit and why does he assume the impossibility of his hypothetical bike thief hitting upon the right combination early on in his attempts to crack the code?
He finishes by speaking about intelligent design, but that proposal again leads me to ask the question I’ve yet to receive a satisfactory answer to – from you or from anyone else. Of all the alleged creator Gods imagined by man (a couple of thousand at least), why do you, Stephen Meyer, Douglas Axe, and Murray Eden opt for the biblical God in particular?
Neither the speaker nor those mentioned in your video can claim to be speaking from a position of unbiased objectivity. Douglas Axe is president of an organisation that promotes intelligent design, and Stephen Meyer, co-founder and vice-president of that organisation, relies upon blinding the listener with science. I’ll borrow his word … ‘gibberish’.
You might find this interesting. The other man mentioned in your video, Murray Eden, is featured.
https:/
Just a by the bye but I wish the producers of videos such as this would ditch the plinky-plonky musical background. Never an aid to concentration – but maybe that’s the plan.
He finishes by speaking about intelligent design, but that proposal again leads me to ask the question I’ve yet to receive a satisfactory answer to – from you or from anyone else. Of all the alleged creator Gods imagined by man (a couple of thousand at least), why do you, Stephen Meyer, Douglas Axe, and Murray Eden opt for the biblical God in particular?
Neither the speaker nor those mentioned in your video can claim to be speaking from a position of unbiased objectivity. Douglas Axe is president of an organisation that promotes intelligent design, and Stephen Meyer, co-founder and vice-president of that organisation, relies upon blinding the listener with science. I’ll borrow his word … ‘gibberish’.
You might find this interesting. The other man mentioned in your video, Murray Eden, is featured.
https:/
Just a by the bye but I wish the producers of videos such as this would ditch the plinky-plonky musical background. Never an aid to concentration – but maybe that’s the plan.
Theland, as normal you are talking utter rubbish ,but just as with 'Flat Earthers' & 'Moon landing deniers' nothing any of us can say or do will ever convince you that you are wrong.
Just answer this 'If God created the Universe and everything in it' who created God?
Or do you think 'God'simply arose spontaneously from nothing?
Just answer this 'If God created the Universe and everything in it' who created God?
Or do you think 'God'simply arose spontaneously from nothing?
"new biological forms require biological information"
well OK but as an axiom requiring no proof - well I would choose Darwin to be honest
longish speel on DNA- and honestly DNA being done by theologians - no thanks....
so the new animal ( = new species ) needs DNA
and you know monkeys dont write shakespeare
and it cant be evolution
so it must be God !
dear god
well OK but as an axiom requiring no proof - well I would choose Darwin to be honest
longish speel on DNA- and honestly DNA being done by theologians - no thanks....
so the new animal ( = new species ) needs DNA
and you know monkeys dont write shakespeare
and it cant be evolution
so it must be God !
dear god
The problem with the video, or indeed any other version of this attack on evolution, is that it ignores the point that the changes are not entirely random. There are various other factors at play, pressures that select the "better" random mutations, so that one can gradually reach the "goal", so to speak.
This is also at play in the development of proteins, where it would be churlish to pretend that the shapes and structures are entirely random. Molecules are also interested in the laws of physics -- so the shapes will be dictated by those, rather than by the purest random chance.
If, indeed, there were no such physical laws or environmental pressures, then one would struggle to explain all of this without reference to the other possible pressure of a guiding hand. But there are such laws, so there's no such need for an Intelligent Designer.
Still, this doesn't rule out the possibility of one -- merely exposes the weakness of an argument that assumes that the Universe without an Intelligent Designer is purely random. It's not.
This is also at play in the development of proteins, where it would be churlish to pretend that the shapes and structures are entirely random. Molecules are also interested in the laws of physics -- so the shapes will be dictated by those, rather than by the purest random chance.
If, indeed, there were no such physical laws or environmental pressures, then one would struggle to explain all of this without reference to the other possible pressure of a guiding hand. But there are such laws, so there's no such need for an Intelligent Designer.
Still, this doesn't rule out the possibility of one -- merely exposes the weakness of an argument that assumes that the Universe without an Intelligent Designer is purely random. It's not.
awful rubbish masquerading as science
I dont mind the - science has yet to explain.......
but object to - and so it must be God.
we have difdferent ideas about evolution than Darwin
just as we have different ideas about physics and chemistry compared to Clerk Maxwell, and Mendeleev
( or maff compared to Frege)
warious things
"Darwen was perplexed by the Cambrian explosion"
er was he ? I wd have thought he said once an advantageous form evolved, then it would explode
The advantage said to be the preception of light compared to those that did not.
and Darwin was puzzled by the mammalian eye and its development. He said once it had been worked out - it would prove his theory
and creationists use the same problem ( evolution of the eye) as evidence in their favour. We dont know how it was done so it must be God's
I dont mind the - science has yet to explain.......
but object to - and so it must be God.
we have difdferent ideas about evolution than Darwin
just as we have different ideas about physics and chemistry compared to Clerk Maxwell, and Mendeleev
( or maff compared to Frege)
warious things
"Darwen was perplexed by the Cambrian explosion"
er was he ? I wd have thought he said once an advantageous form evolved, then it would explode
The advantage said to be the preception of light compared to those that did not.
and Darwin was puzzled by the mammalian eye and its development. He said once it had been worked out - it would prove his theory
and creationists use the same problem ( evolution of the eye) as evidence in their favour. We dont know how it was done so it must be God's
where it would be churlish to pretend that the shapes and structures are entirely random. Jim
Hi Jim - yeah we were taught in the early seventies, that they took up forms as they emerged from the ribosome. and that this was dictated by the lowest energy ( highest entropy)
Sanger did insulin and found it had 1/100 the power of natural insulin and S said 'what the hell I have done it'. The lack of activity was ascribed to a mistaken amin acid
but then .... proteins which shape proteins as they come out of the ribosome were discovered. - to shape the protein into an advantageous form but not the lowest energy ( clearly they use ATP) - cant remember the name.
Hi Jim - yeah we were taught in the early seventies, that they took up forms as they emerged from the ribosome. and that this was dictated by the lowest energy ( highest entropy)
Sanger did insulin and found it had 1/100 the power of natural insulin and S said 'what the hell I have done it'. The lack of activity was ascribed to a mistaken amin acid
but then .... proteins which shape proteins as they come out of the ribosome were discovered. - to shape the protein into an advantageous form but not the lowest energy ( clearly they use ATP) - cant remember the name.
Good book here that addresses the Intelligent Design issue.
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
personally I think its irrelevant...and a bit rude to god to say that god must exist because she did this this way.....kind of setting bounds on what god would be able to do. Why can god not have used evolution?
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
personally I think its irrelevant...and a bit rude to god to say that god must exist because she did this this way.....kind of setting bounds on what god would be able to do. Why can god not have used evolution?
