 |
Duration: 00:46 minutes Upload Time: 2007-10-13 18:03:27 User: pyrrho314 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: designing all of biology response to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkrD_v4GXMY Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License |
|
Comments | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-10-14 18:28:22 well, not just being witty, he had a particular aestetic he thought the world fit, and comprehensibility was part of it. He thought laws should exist that would show nature was not random. I think he was wrong there. __________________________________________________ | |
| Cherri59 ::: Favorites 2007-10-14 03:14:56 If there is a God, I think he/she/whatever was more interested in the design of the soul not the body. That is the perfect design: the soul. __________________________________________________ | |
| StormTrek ::: Favorites 2007-10-14 01:08:08 You have a point with Newton, but Einstein didn't believe in God. He was just making one of his witty statements. But your point about GUT as well as others shows that science is peripheral to the design debate. If science cannot provide an answer then perception takes a larger position and you get a video like Supex's. __________________________________________________ | |
| dogatron ::: Favorites 2007-10-13 23:47:03 I think our ego always wants us to believe that god (or just 'everything unified/explained')is just a paradigm shift away but for all we know 'unification' could be like the horizon - no matter how many times we circle the earth trying to reach it, it will always be just as far away as it was when we started. __________________________________________________ | |
| dogatron ::: Favorites 2007-10-13 23:46:23 I think Isaac Newton basically filled in the parts his mechanics couldn't explain by saying 'that's the work of god' and Einstein said 'god doesn't play dice' when quantum physics tried to add on to relativity. __________________________________________________ | |
| StormTrek ::: Favorites 2007-10-13 22:51:34 I don't think scientists have said that, but I don't want you to think I miss your point. The design argument intersects with science occasionally, but it is essentially philosophical. __________________________________________________ | |
| dogatron ::: Favorites 2007-10-13 20:33:50 It seems though that with every paradigm shift the scientists have said 'well it must be god's work' refering to everything they cannot explain, as if to say 'only god could jump 2m44' because it hasn't been done before. To me that's just ego getting in the way on the scientist's part. So to get back from this tangent, to debate the intelligent design issue is like arguing that no man could clear 1m50 - even a kid could clear it. We've just got to focus on clearing over 2m43. __________________________________________________ | |
| dogatron ::: Favorites 2007-10-13 20:32:50 why even argue with the 'He designed us' BS? Do we still see articles in Astronomical Journal saying 'Earth is flat - further proof revealed'. The way I see it science has progressed so much that if it were a high jump competition then the athletes were clearing around 1m50 back when 'He created us'. Since then the bar has been raised further and further and now stands at 2m43 or relativity. __________________________________________________ | |
| pyrrho314 ::: Favorites 2007-10-13 19:14:09 seriously, forgetting about the theists... it's like saying the world would be better with no friction. I mean, friction causes us a lot of energy loss and skinned knees... but without friction, we'd have no leverage, we'd lose the freedom to control our motion, or rather the power to. If God designed struggle in... I would see it in those terms. We're here to live the struggles too, not just the pie and good beer that we prefer. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment