Crosswords0 min ago
The Video Atheists Don't Want You To See.
58 Answers
This is a lon video on YouTube. I would like you to be entertained by it, and informed. Ditch your faith / belief in atheism and at least CONSIDER the information in it. For your eternal souls sake. God bless you all.
"The Video Atheists Don't Want You To See."
"The Video Atheists Don't Want You To See."
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.
jim; The argument of irreducible complexity does not try to prove the existence of God and is more to do with the origin of life being outside of this planet, a view upheld by scientists of the calibre of Stephen Hawking. Science can already explain the process of blood-clotting but cannot and I believe never will be able to explain how such extraordinary complexity could come into being within the allotted timeframe suggested (and doubted) by Darwin.
andy; //[atheism] is the absence of belief or faith// This just ain't true and mibs is correct. Christianity itself was once considered to be atheistic in that it refused to recognize the Roman gods and emperor.
andy; //[atheism] is the absence of belief or faith// This just ain't true and mibs is correct. Christianity itself was once considered to be atheistic in that it refused to recognize the Roman gods and emperor.
"The argument of irreducible complexity does not try to prove the existence of God ..."
Not always, although it can be, which is the main point. The fine-tuning argument isn't necessarily used to argue for the existence of a god either. The asterisk in my post was going to be attached to a comment about how it is sometimes used to suggest that new physics is awaiting discovery.
Not always, although it can be, which is the main point. The fine-tuning argument isn't necessarily used to argue for the existence of a god either. The asterisk in my post was going to be attached to a comment about how it is sometimes used to suggest that new physics is awaiting discovery.
Irreducible complexity?
Science has vastly reduced the complexity of existence to a very few fundamental particles and forces that can model the entire known universe. This model has successfully predicted the existence of particles for which there was no previous observable evidence (eg Higgs Boson).
In such cases, no further interpretation was required. The theory literallysaid it would be seen and it was seen without question. To me that is genuine prophecy.
"Biblical prophecy" is always about interpretation of what is purported to represent "signs". Despite endless interpretations, none has ever predicted anything unambiguous. The soothsayers always point to things that have already happened.
The main success the Abrahamic religion brigade seems to be having is bringing on the Armageddon they all eagerly anticipate. The only hope for the planet is for education to overwhelm the belief in these archaic, bizarre rituals and relegate them to the obscurity of history where they belong.
Science has vastly reduced the complexity of existence to a very few fundamental particles and forces that can model the entire known universe. This model has successfully predicted the existence of particles for which there was no previous observable evidence (eg Higgs Boson).
In such cases, no further interpretation was required. The theory literallysaid it would be seen and it was seen without question. To me that is genuine prophecy.
"Biblical prophecy" is always about interpretation of what is purported to represent "signs". Despite endless interpretations, none has ever predicted anything unambiguous. The soothsayers always point to things that have already happened.
The main success the Abrahamic religion brigade seems to be having is bringing on the Armageddon they all eagerly anticipate. The only hope for the planet is for education to overwhelm the belief in these archaic, bizarre rituals and relegate them to the obscurity of history where they belong.
// I've said before that I'm not convinced that people actually know what is "irreducibly complex" yet, so anything held up as a particular example (the eye, most famously) turns out not to be so many years later. // Jim
aye aye Jim lad - The eye keeps on coming back. Darwin no less said - that once the evolution of the eye was solved it would prove his theories
and here we have the evolution of the eye disproves evolution
and so one could conclude from that .... the eye has not place in the argument
The usual evolutionary argument is that i it (eye) was so advantageous that it evolved quickly and no intermediate forms were preserved. One thing that has recently occurred is that a protein from the insect complex eye is expressed in the mammalian eye. That really shocked scientists.
aye aye Jim lad - The eye keeps on coming back. Darwin no less said - that once the evolution of the eye was solved it would prove his theories
and here we have the evolution of the eye disproves evolution
and so one could conclude from that .... the eye has not place in the argument
The usual evolutionary argument is that i it (eye) was so advantageous that it evolved quickly and no intermediate forms were preserved. One thing that has recently occurred is that a protein from the insect complex eye is expressed in the mammalian eye. That really shocked scientists.
beso; You begin your post with "Irreducible complexity?" and then proceed with 4 paragraphs about religion as if you were addressing your question. I suggest you clearly do not understand this subject which is in essence biological not religious.
P.P. Indeed! and if Darwin had 'eye problems' just think what he would have had with the more recent discovery that 300 million years ago trilobites had eyes of enormous complexity containing dozens of separate lenses.
P.P. Indeed! and if Darwin had 'eye problems' just think what he would have had with the more recent discovery that 300 million years ago trilobites had eyes of enormous complexity containing dozens of separate lenses.
The path to developing eyes is not particularly complex. Its status as a reason for needing a creator has been debunked many times.
The hypothesis of a creator is fatally flawed because it conceives of a universe that begins with the most complex thing in the universe (a god) without any suggestion of an origin.
The description of the Universe by Science begins with a tiny amorphous block of pure energy. Everything we see comes from that tiny block according to the Physical Laws of the Universe. It is far more plausible.
The hypothesis of a creator is fatally flawed because it conceives of a universe that begins with the most complex thing in the universe (a god) without any suggestion of an origin.
The description of the Universe by Science begins with a tiny amorphous block of pure energy. Everything we see comes from that tiny block according to the Physical Laws of the Universe. It is far more plausible.
As usual Khandro resorts to insults when he has nothing worth saying.
Yes, the path to developing eyes is not particularly complex. This is why eyes appeared early and have independently evolved many times in nature.
A complex organ does not simply appear fully formed but evolves in steps. The only requirement is that any intermediate stage of the evolution must be sufficiently viable to reproduce and thrive.
It begins with the development of a light sensitive chemical in a very early ancestor. Such chemicals are present in the cytoplasm of single cellular organisms and even form into clumps. The ability to sense light affords an advantage.
Similar clumps can obviously be reproduced on a larger scale in a multicellular organism. Those area are afforded a stronger directional sensitivity be dishing inwards. The small steps continue through a ball with a hole and a lens, then colour.
It is pretty simple really. There is no need for a creator. Nature intrinsically has the capability for life and so in a universe on the scale of ours it is pretty much a certainty to happen somewhere. It happened here at least.
The subject is thoroughly covered here:
https:/
Yes, the path to developing eyes is not particularly complex. This is why eyes appeared early and have independently evolved many times in nature.
A complex organ does not simply appear fully formed but evolves in steps. The only requirement is that any intermediate stage of the evolution must be sufficiently viable to reproduce and thrive.
It begins with the development of a light sensitive chemical in a very early ancestor. Such chemicals are present in the cytoplasm of single cellular organisms and even form into clumps. The ability to sense light affords an advantage.
Similar clumps can obviously be reproduced on a larger scale in a multicellular organism. Those area are afforded a stronger directional sensitivity be dishing inwards. The small steps continue through a ball with a hole and a lens, then colour.
It is pretty simple really. There is no need for a creator. Nature intrinsically has the capability for life and so in a universe on the scale of ours it is pretty much a certainty to happen somewhere. It happened here at least.
The subject is thoroughly covered here:
https:/
beso; Wise man say; Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
//The subject is thoroughly covered here://
No it isn't. You present a tenuous unsubstantiated theory as if it were fact.
This is typical top-down research beginning with the premise that the origin of life must have begun on Earth and continues to attempt to accommodate that belief.
You continually wish to bring God into this which I don't. Are you a biologist? - I am not, but I have two close family members who are, one a professor at a German university who specializes in vision.
Unfortunately for the layperson much of biochemistry is in the details and skimming through Wikipedia will leave you staring at the ceiling at the next stage. The factors involved in the justification of step by step approach to vision are staggeringly high and far from being "pretty simple really".
//The subject is thoroughly covered here://
No it isn't. You present a tenuous unsubstantiated theory as if it were fact.
This is typical top-down research beginning with the premise that the origin of life must have begun on Earth and continues to attempt to accommodate that belief.
You continually wish to bring God into this which I don't. Are you a biologist? - I am not, but I have two close family members who are, one a professor at a German university who specializes in vision.
Unfortunately for the layperson much of biochemistry is in the details and skimming through Wikipedia will leave you staring at the ceiling at the next stage. The factors involved in the justification of step by step approach to vision are staggeringly high and far from being "pretty simple really".
Khandro,
one "generation" for certain unicellular organisma can be as little as 30 minutes.
Basic evolutionary principle #1: Primitive life went through many thousands of generations per year and there were hundreds of millions of years before the "Cambrian explosion".
A classic genetic trick is to (by mistake) copy a stretch too many times then concatenate the pieces. A worm might start off with 8 segments and, 10 million years later, it has 50 segments.
Going from a single retina, single lens insect/trilobyte eye to one containing 50 receptors and 150 lenses can occur by an analagous process.
The genome keeps getting bigger. A physically larger target can be more easily hit and mutated by cosmic rays, ionising radiation and UV light.
If its self-repair capacity does not keep pace with these accidental duplications then a longer genome has greater scope for point mutations and a species can diversify until the variants can no longer interbreed and "lo", you have a new species.
Bacteria still evolve fast - e.g. MRSA. Even mosquitos have adapted to biting in daylight hours.
Which reminds me. Why would a God create parasites, to kill or make life a misery for his other creations?
one "generation" for certain unicellular organisma can be as little as 30 minutes.
Basic evolutionary principle #1: Primitive life went through many thousands of generations per year and there were hundreds of millions of years before the "Cambrian explosion".
A classic genetic trick is to (by mistake) copy a stretch too many times then concatenate the pieces. A worm might start off with 8 segments and, 10 million years later, it has 50 segments.
Going from a single retina, single lens insect/trilobyte eye to one containing 50 receptors and 150 lenses can occur by an analagous process.
The genome keeps getting bigger. A physically larger target can be more easily hit and mutated by cosmic rays, ionising radiation and UV light.
If its self-repair capacity does not keep pace with these accidental duplications then a longer genome has greater scope for point mutations and a species can diversify until the variants can no longer interbreed and "lo", you have a new species.
Bacteria still evolve fast - e.g. MRSA. Even mosquitos have adapted to biting in daylight hours.
Which reminds me. Why would a God create parasites, to kill or make life a misery for his other creations?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
News9 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Not Much Of A Room I Let To Renovate
Crosswords10 mins ago
How it Works27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.