1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    29 May '12 20:331 edit
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus

    YouTube&NR=1&feature=fvwp
  2. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91634
    29 May '12 23:18
    Not looking it up unless you give me at least one line of what your touting here. (and even then it would want to be a good line, which is rare, if not extremely rare from you)
  3. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    30 May '12 00:52
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7TfMQJuf0I&NR=1&feature=fvwp
    I like the eerie music playing in the first one while the guy rattles off really obvious statements like:

    If there was no strong nuclear force, then the nucleus wouldn't exist.

    Even better is the 'atom' with electrons orbiting the nucleus. 😛
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    30 May '12 02:39
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    I like the eerie music playing in the first one while the guy rattles off really obvious statements like:

    If there was no strong nuclear force, then the nucleus wouldn't exist.

    Even better is the 'atom' with electrons orbiting the nucleus. 😛
    I am glad you liked parts of it. But I am not sure by your statements that the message did not fly over your head.
  5. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91634
    30 May '12 02:55
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    I like the eerie music playing in the first one while the guy rattles off really obvious statements like:

    If there was no strong nuclear force, then the nucleus wouldn't exist.

    Even better is the 'atom' with electrons orbiting the nucleus. 😛
    Actually , not seeing it and conjuring up images and sounds using SW's line here has made me come up with my own little picture show in my head which is, I reckon , funnier than the actual vid.

    Thanks Gambit 🙂
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    30 May '12 03:22
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Not looking it up unless you give me at least one line of what your touting here. (and even then it would want to be a good line, which is rare, if not extremely rare from you)
    Who care? I am not here to do your bidding.
  7. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91634
    30 May '12 04:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Who care? I am not here to do your bidding.
    Yeah, like Dasa sometimes, you clutter up these threads with utter tripe.

    Seriously , we dont need your opinion on everything. In your case at the moment, I would seriously advise you about the wisdom of the "less is more" theory 😉
    (sheeesh)
  8. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    30 May '12 05:31
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Actually , not seeing it and conjuring up images and sounds using SW's line here has made me come up with my own little picture show in my head which is, I reckon , funnier than the actual vid.

    Thanks Gambit 🙂
    Glad to help. 🙂
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    30 May '12 05:50
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7TfMQJuf0I&NR=1&feature=fvwp
    Wow!
    Without gravity we wouldnt exist!!!

    hallelujah!!!!!!!!
  10. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    30 May '12 06:25
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    I like the eerie music playing in the first one while the guy rattles off really obvious statements like:

    If there was no strong nuclear force, then the nucleus wouldn't exist.

    Even better is the 'atom' with electrons orbiting the nucleus. 😛
    is it another one of those 'the hole must have been designed to fit the puddle' arguments?
  11. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    30 May '12 14:57
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    is it another one of those 'the hole must have been designed to fit the puddle' arguments?
    Yep.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    31 May '12 03:551 edit
    Let us for a moment think of an aspirin; you will immediately recall the mark in the middle. This mark is designed to help those who take a half dose. Every product that we see around us, even if not as simple as the aspirin, is of a certain design, from the vehicles we use to go to work, to TV remote controls.

    Design, in brief, means a harmonious assembling of various parts in an orderly form designed for a common goal. Going by this definition, one has no difficulty in guessing that a car is a design. This is because there is a certain goal, which is to transport people and cargo. In realisation of this goal, various parts such as the engine, tires and body are planned and assembled in a factory.

    However, what about living creatures? Can a bird and the mechanics of its flight be a design as well? Before giving an answer, let us repeat the evaluation we did in the example of the car. The goal, in this case, is to fly. For this purpose, hollow, light-weight bones and the strong breast muscles that move these bones are utilised together with feathers capable of suspension in the air. Wings are formed aerodynamically, and the metabolism is in tune with the bird's need for high levels of energy. It is obvious that the bird is a product of a certain design.

    If we leave aside the bird and examine other forms of life, we encounter the same truth. In every creature, there are examples of extremely well-conceived design. If we continue further on this quest, we discover that we ourselves are also a part of this design. Your hands that hold these pages are functional as no robot hands could ever be. Your eyes that read these lines are making vision possible with such focus that the best camera on earth simply cannot achieve.

    Hence one arrives at this important conclusion; all creatures in nature, including us, are of a design. This, in turn, shows the existence of a Creator, Who designs all creatures at will, sustains the entire creation and holds absolute power and wisdom.

    However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution that was formed in the middle of the 19th century. The theory set forth in Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species asserts that all creatures evolved by chains of coincidences and mutated from one another.

    According to the fundamental premise of this theory, all life forms go through minute random changes. If these random changes improve a life form, then it gains an advantage over the others, which in turn is carried onto following generations.

    This scenario has been passed around for 140 years as if it is very scientific and convincing. When scrutinised under a larger microscope and when compared against the examples of the design in creatures, Darwin's theory paints a very different picture, i.e. Darwinism's explanation of life is nothing more than a self-contradictory vicious circle.

    Let us first focus on the random changes. Darwin could not provide a comprehensive definition of this concept due to lack of knowledge of genetics in his time. The evolutionists who followed him suggested the concept of "mutation". Mutation is arbitrary disconnections, dislocations or shifts of genes in living things. Most importantly, there is not one single mutation in history that has been shown to improve the condition of a creature's genetic information. Nearly all the known cases of mutations disable or harm these creatures and the rest are neutral in effect. Therefore, to think that a creature can improve through mutation is the same as shooting at a crowd of people hoping that the injuries will result in healthier improved individuals. This is clearly nonsense.

    As importantly, and contrary to all the scientific data, even if one assumes that a certain mutation could actually improve a being's condition, Darwinism still cannot be delivered from inevitable collapse. The reason for this is a concept called "irreducible complexity." The implication of this concept is that the majority of systems and organs in living things function as a result of various independent parts working together, the elimination or disabling of even one of which would be enough to disable the entire system or organ.

    For example, an ear perceives sounds only through a sequence of smaller organs. Take out or deform one of these, e.g. one of the bones of the middle ear, and there would be no hearing whatsoever. In order for an ear to perceive, a variety of components – such as external auditory canal, tympanic membrane, bones in the middle ear, that is, the hammer, anvil and stirrup, fluid-filled cochlea, hearing receptors or hair cells, the cilia which help these cells to sense the vibrations, the net of nerves that connect to the brain and hearing centre in the brain – have to work together without exception. The system could not have developed in segments because none of the segments could possibly function alone.

    Hence, the concept of irreducible complexity demolishes the theory of evolution at its foundations. Interestingly, Darwin also worried about these very prospects. He wrote in On The Origin of Species:


    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

    Darwin could not, or might not have wanted to, find such an organ at the premature levels of 19th century science. However the science of the 20th century did study nature in minute details and proved that the majority of living structures embody irreducible complexity. Therefore, Darwin's theory has "absolutely" collapsed just as he feared.

    http://harunyahya.com/en/works/970/
  13. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    31 May '12 04:01
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Let us for a moment think of an aspirin; you will immediately recall the mark in the middle. This mark is designed to help those who take a half dose. Every product that we see around us, even if not as simple as the aspirin, is of a certain design, from the vehicles we use to go to work, to TV remote controls.

    Design, in brief, means a harmonious assemb ...[text shortened]... as "absolutely" collapsed just as he feared.

    http://harunyahya.com/en/works/970/
    It is 'obvious' that the car is designed because we know that human beings have a history of designing and manufacturing cars.

    Show me a car that can breed and make little baby cars; then we'll talk about whether a bird is 'designed'. 😵
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    31 May '12 04:102 edits
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    It is 'obvious' that the car is designed because we know that human beings have a history of designing and manufacturing cars.

    Show me a car that can breed and make little baby cars; then we'll talk about whether a bird is 'designed'. 😵
    Wouldn't you think that would be an exceptional design, if cars could reproduce themselves? Anyone that could add that design quality to cars would have to be considered the greatest designer in human history outside of God, for God has already done it in most of His creations.
  15. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    31 May '12 04:23
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Wouldn't you think that would be an exceptional design, if cars could reproduce themselves? Anyone that could add that design quality to cars would have to be considered the greatest designer in human history outside of God, for God has already done it in most of His creations.
    Yeah, it would be an exceptional design. But there would be no question that the design follows an idea in nature, and not the other way around.
Back to Top