Neither of us own anything to each other, and I have no interest in his opinions. If you wish to share yours, such that discussion could follow, that is fine by me. Since I see you suggesting that many people view this video, it would make sense that there is something in the video that appeals to you, so why not just talk about what appeals to you, or what you learned, etc? If you haven't absorbed what he said, and made it your own such that you could explain it to others, what good is it actually? Reminds me of people telling others to read some scriptures. Just please share what you think, beyond thinking we should all devote an hour to watching some video. I could equally say that you should devote an hour to the practice of faith in God with a fully open mind and heart. If you are offering the video as some "proof" of your own opinions, that is understandable, but as I don't agree with your atheistic opinions, so what is the point really? The conclusions of Miller, which are not really science, but rather the opinion of someone, are his and his alone, and may be shared by others. So if you share his opinion, please state it. As I have stated previously, the opinions of scientists have been elevated to shaman level in our culture, and I find that most disturbing. Science speaks for itself, and doesn't really require opinions to make it work. I have zero issue with real science, but I do think that the so called "science" agenda is not really about science at all per say, but about a reactionary position to theism, and makes its efforts to how and what children should be exposed to in the public school system. As such, it becomes a political issue, as it ultimately is about power, the power for what opinions to propagate in the public school systems. Under the guise of "science" the agenda of so called "scientists" want to determine what children, and subsequently others, should believe. The right of parents to offer their opinions should be primary, not secondary to the public school systems indoctrination attempts. Like so many things in life, the sheeple have adopted the dogma of science without really and truly understanding what it means. This is primarily because the school system doesn't teach people how to think, but rather what to think.
ZZZZZZZZZZ you are exposing what you are all about. you admit you have not even listened to the video yet you say this:"The conclusions of Miller, which are not really science, but rather the opinion of someone, are his and his alone, and may be shared by others." how do you know if you are afraid to listen? this so fits you: "The very concept of faith is an insult to human intelligence. If you take something on faith, you are in effect saying, "I don't need evidence, facts, or logic. Evidence is worthless, facts are for ninnies, logic is nonsense. I'll believe whatever I want even if reality overwhelmingly shows that it's just not true."
No fear of listening to Miller and his opinions. Simply put, I have no interest in his opinions...since I have no issue with hard science, and unless his lecture is hard science devoid of opinion, which would make it for those studying science, not a layman, there is no point. Makes just about as much sense for a leader in the field of theology who has studied some scripture for 50 years to be evaluated by an atheist as to what scriptures mean. Repeat, I have no interest in Miller's opinions, nor his agenda. I see you are still grinding against your youth with your resentful hostility towards faith and those who practice it. How old are you now that you still need to grind against faith and have not moved beyond the childhood wounds and resentments? p.s. When someone says there are "random" biological processes, they are essentially saying "I don't see a pattern" which is not the same as saying "there is no pattern." It is an argument and conclusion from ignorance, and propagated dogmatically as some kind of fact, which it is not. It would become fact that there is no pattern or design when someone could rule out design and pattern. Again, ignorance doesn't create a fact, but the ignorant accept something unknown as fact of existence, then take it on faith to practice their respective belief systems, be they atheistic or theistic. The agnostic makes no such conclusions, they tell the truth, which they don't know...and therefore choose not to believe either way.
of course you have no interest. closed minded people have no interest in learning anything that might not fit their little closed minded world. i will make you a deal.you can find your best faith piece and i will read or watch it if you will watch this video.
the first thing he says on the video is that he is also a man of faith. he only offers evidence and leaves it up to you to decide.
I don't care if he is a man of faith, or an atheist, he is offering up opinion, conclusions, and has an agenda. No interest in his opinions, nor his agenda, thanks anyway.
Now I am closed minded but you are open minded. How funny... Seems there is dogmatic homogeneity in the ET atheist camp...
I think you have the converse of the argument. I did not read that String theory postulates there must be a universe with life. Nothing I have read says you could not have an have an infiinite amount of universes without life. String Theory is not really dealing with life or even the conditions of life. that is a conclusion drawn from the math. Since 2000 when String theory was extended to show that there could be more than a million Universes Dr. Susskind now feels comfortable in saying that the anthropic principle does not point to design. The point is that the cosmological constant - or the fine tuning of our universe is such a strong argument that there is a designer - to combat that conclusion you must have an infinite amount of universes. And if the science does support the conclusion of infinte universes then science will be in an awkward postion when cobating IDers pointing to the anthropic principle.
"p.s. When someone says there are "random" biological processes, they are essentially saying "I don't see a pattern" which is not the same as saying "there is no pattern." " how do you know what he says. you said have not watched it.
yes that is evident by the fact that i will look at any evidence and you are afraid to watch this video.