Share Video
Download Video: Click Here (save as ***.flv) | Real Player or any FLV Player Required
Permalink:
Embed Code:
Bookmark
Pinage Says:
Nov 15, 2009 - Though the world and the universe may appear to be designed at a glance, the more we study it, the less it appears so. If life was designed, it was done so poorly. Did you know that the human retina is backwards? Only a fool would design it so. That's just one example. I could name several.
Pinage Says:
Nov 15, 2009 - Ah, quantum physics. I know next to nothing about quantum physics. I have heard it said that if you think you know quantum physics - you don't know quantum physics. What do you know of it?
keith1y Says:
Nov 15, 2009 - You only think the retina was designed backwards. Do you know what would happen if it was the other way around? UV light would not be filtered out, and you would go blind pretty quickly. Octopus retina are the other way around, but then they live underwater and don't need to filter out harmful radiation. Bear in mind that no human has ever managed to design anything better Just an example of an approach to science where putting assumptions first results in peddling the dogma of the assumption
keith1y Says:
Nov 15, 2009 - "Though the world and the universe may appear to be designed at a glance," - the obvious conclusion. Let me fill in the missing words, of your next sentence. "the more we study it," assuming that it was not designed, "the less it appears" to be as we assumed. There are others who say, "the more we study it," assuming that it was designed, "the more it appears" to be as we assumed. Real science appreciates the power of assumptions to skew the interpretation. Is it a search for truth?
keith1y Says:
Nov 15, 2009 - If science is a search for truth, then observations should occur first, and should be interpreted in the light of all possible assumptions, not just your own. When you put your assumptions first to the exclusion of all else you are preaching a religious dogma. I have had every scientific belief I was ever taught overturned by better science 30 years later. Science should hold the consensus very lightly indeed, it only takes ONE supernatural observation to upset the apple cart.
keith1y Says:
Nov 15, 2009 - Given it only takes 1 supernatural observation to proove materialism wrong. If you weigh the dice too heavily with materialistic assumptions you prevent yourself from ever making that falsifying observation, and you cease to be a scientist. All that is needed is to agree terms for applying scientific measurements to God, and he can be found. For example, if I was to record 2 hours of God speaking audibly what criteria would be used to asses whether it was God speaking or not?
keith1y Says:
Nov 15, 2009 - ... if I was to supply 4xA4 pages written as dictation from God what analysis would you consider valid for determining whether or not it was God or not. People who say "science" has never found God, have never looked scientifically or otherwise in the places that God said he is to be found. Science should consider all of the evidence, and there is a lot of it. Unless of course you assume there isn't any in which case there is none. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Pinage Says:
Nov 16, 2009 - Is not the UV filter on the outside of the eye? "Bear in mind that no human has ever managed to design anything better" Really? I have a digital camera that begs to differ. It can take far more detailed pictures than my crummy eyes can.
Pinage Says:
Nov 16, 2009 - I had a look at the first part of his 'The Extended Mind - Telepathy' seminar. I must say it all sounds very far fetched. He seems to hold anecdotal evidence (the weakest kind of evidence) quite highly. I find myself doubting the conclusions of someone so easily convinced.
laservishnu Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - @keith1y Lol. Yeah I forgot that water completely blocks out UV rays. Thanks.
keith1y Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - "Really? I have a digital camera that begs to differ. It can take far more detailed pictures than my crummy eyes can." really, now is the same camera able to work in low light conditions? Is it waterproof, self cleaning lens, adjustable in focus and direction all in a package the size of an eyeball. I don't think so. Personally I think that eyes are extremely good at what they do.
keith1y Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - "He seems to hold anecdotal evidence (the weakest kind of evidence) quite highly." Highly in the sense that it points towards something to investigate further, so he actually does the investigation, rather than ignore the data.
keith1y Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - glib answers don't help me believe that you are looking at this objectively. The position of the blood supply is to provide the eye's photo receptors with regenerative capability in response to UV damage. Now why evolution would care about the eye being able to repair itself I don't know, after all once you have had your kids, you are surplus to requirements.
Pinage Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - My camera isn't great in low-light conditions, no. Nor is it water proof. Unfortunately it isn't self-cleansing either (though I've never had to clean it). It does auto-adjust in focus, however. But all that aside, it is worthwhile pointing out that there are such cameras that are water-proof, can see in the dark, can move in multiple directions and are minuscule. There may even be a camera out there which can clean itself.
Pinage Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - However, the most significant advantage cameras have over our eyes is that cameras can see an entire scene in full detail at once. Our eyes by comparison are very limited. We can see only the object we are looking directly at in detail while our peripherals remain hazy. I agree that our eyes do a great job and but I think they could do better. Incidentally, how many cameras do you know of which need glasses?
Pinage Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - If science had found God, the scientific community would have let us know by now. It would be pretty big news. Where did God say he was to be found? If evidence exists it will be used.
keith1y Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - hubble! Can your camera maintain itself, repair itself, and power itself from organic matierials.
keith1y Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - When God appeared directly in fire on the mountain, (the burnt mountain is still there) people were too scared so he said ok, plan B. The prophet Isaiah said ~700BC "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, he shall be called wonderful counsellor, everlasting father, mighty God". The angel announced this at Jesus conception. Jesus said "if you have seen me you have seen the Father" look where that got him. So on to plan C. I will send the comforter... holy spirit.
keith1y Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - Plan C. He sent the holy spirit to pickle/saturate mens hearts with love. Of any person that has invited him to do so. This started with 3000 people in one day. Secondly he said he will never leave us, he is with you now. This only requires one more dimension to space/time. So if you talk to him, and write down the answer (suspending judgement for 5 mins), you can the look at what you have written and find it is coherent, honest, gentle, and loving God will speak to anyone any time they want.
keith1y Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - He normally needs an emotional context to speak to, since he engages with us in our emotions. This is why I say that anyone can hear from God in the context of their own deepest pain, but not while overwhelmed by their pain, it drowns him out. If you look to listen to God rather than the pain, you might be surprised.
Pinage Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - Haha, yes I remember that. They buggered up Hubble and had to give it glasses. :P My camera is maintained by, repaired by and powered by mechanical materials. That is the whole point behind this discussion, is it not? Organic vs mechanic.
wildboy789789 Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - ben stein is not an american scientist... hes a conservative creationist
laservishnu Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - The position of the blood supply? Since blood is flowing it doesn't have a position. Do you mean the circulatory system? And it makes a lot of sense to have eyes that can repair themselves in a competing system--it makes you more likely to survive than those who don't have this capability.
RavenBlaze Says:
Nov 17, 2009 - Newton confessed it on his death bed that gravity and all his theories were fake and his futher research proved his earlier thoughts wrong...RAMEN
Pinage Says:
Nov 15, 2009 - If it is okay for this ultimate source or principle thing to be eternal, why not our universe? If it is because the principle thing must be supernatural by your argument then why couldn't our universe be supernatural, at least in part? I think you are just answering one mystery with another. Why is the naturalist explanation the most improbable? I'd have thought it to be the most likely.