He was asked the questions, not telling us on his own show. It's not like he made a PSA about his thinking. I think he's quite a brilliant man, understands the human complexity very well and uses it to make a career and a living and a name for himself. Using skills to forge something for yourself instead of depending on your neighbor. Quite the best advice for the earthly life.
@VioletRice To address the idea of an infinite universe/multiverse; That is the big hangup right now with physics and cosmology is there are 2 paths. Either all of space-time is infinite or finite. If it is finite then there must be something outside of it that brought it into being. Right now the evidence in both physics and cosmology is pointing towards there needing to be a beginning to all of space time. Whether it is one universe or a multiverse.
@VioletRice On multiverses; One of the main points of evidence on why a multiverse would need a beginning comes from Thermodynamics and the law of entropy. We end up at the point where any number of multiverses would still need to have a beginning. (Therefore not an infinite number as well.) Of course there could be more theories proposed in the future that are able to get around some of these reasons why it couldn't be infinite, but as of right now science is pointing towards the finite.
(cont.) ...I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
What I love so much about the banana argument is that bananas actually WERE designed... by MAN. The bananas in the grocery store look NOTHING like wild bananas. Those are from hundreds of years of selective breeding by humans. Wild bananas are much rounder and have seeds in them and are difficult to open, etc.
We tweaked it more than "a bit." My point is that the specific characteristic of the modern banana that certain apologists point to as evidence of divine design are all traits that HUMANS fashioned through artificial selection.
@VioletRice I agree that we have to exist in order to observe these laws, but as Stephen Hawking notes, using chance to explain how the universe and all the its laws and constants came to be is nearing ludicrous if looking at it from scientific certainty. Can't remember the physicist who calculated that the probability that all laws/constants are as they are and the state of low entropy the universe is in was about 1 to 10^10^123. A double exponent; 10 raised to a 1 with 123 0's after it.
@VioletRice It is good to realize when it is said "being" it is not meant to be being in how we think of it. That is why I try and put it in quotes. Since a being outside of space/time would not be anything that we are familiar with. You can think of this "being" on a basic level as an "unembodied mind." Philosophy does get at this "being" as being the shear act of being; being itself. We all share in being, obviously, but God would be being itself. (i.e.Creator would not be inside the creation)
I think what you mean is that some Christians also studied science and forced what they had been told about Christianity and God onto what they saw in science. All ideas about how 'marvellous' and 'ideal' our Earth is, or the laws of physics are... stem from something that is often overlooked. The way things are here just happens to be the way that means we can exist. We don't know how many universes appeared and imploded before ours 'clicked'.
I thought when ppl talk about intelligent design they refer to the laws of nature. DNA is the building blocks of every cell. We didn't intelligently design ourselves or our children, all we do is learn from nature and be inspired to also be creative, something limited to the human species, though all species are pre-programmed with creating for survival needs, like building their nest or burrows, etc. Science has disproved free will so it raises more questions of what and who are we.
@lostaccato I belive that we live in reality (that we can observe currently by our senses and by our technology (call it "extended senses")). We define the reality based on what we can currently understand and we push the limits of our understanding on a daily basis.
@zebb1111 Do you understand how our brains work? Have you heard the concept of mental construction of the world. To put it simply - the world we see around us is not real as we think it is. We, each one of us, create it inside our heads from the information we obtain through our senses and from the parts that we happen to remember. So, the video you see in youtube is not the same video as I see because we interpret it on our unique way by reflecting it against our memories, experiences, etc.
@VioletRice Good questions, a decent primer to the answer of what physics and cosmology is going after right now can be found in a 12- part series on here called, "God and Modern Physics." The man who does them is accomplished in physics, cosmology, and metaphyscis. I would watch those 12 first, but the I would go out and do your own research of what is going in modern science in regards to the beginning times.
Serious physicists & cosmologists do agree that if this is the only or 1 of only several universes, that the probability of the laws and constants being exactly what they are to support human life is so infinitesimally small, as a scientist they say it doesnt make any sense to say that this all happened by chance. So now to try and explain this is the multi-verse; but still as of right now all the theories lead to a distinct beginning, meaning you would need a "creator". We will see...
@drjohnswilkins I was going to bring up that precise point. It's quite amazing how many foods and animals these days that we do take for granted, but literally would not exist in the form that we know them if it weren't for our deliberate interference.
@VioletRice I would argue that there is a huge difference between a mutiverse and God. The critical difference: A multiverse would still be within a physical space-time, whereas God would be outside of space/time. Meaning a multiverse still needs an explanation for where it came from.
@VioletRice If physics and cosmology keep moving on that path and show scientifically that the universe needs to have some distinct beginning, we then get to the point were we either admit there is some being outside of space-time that created all by a first cause. Or we just throw our hands up and say that something did really come from *absolute* nothing. Which most feel would be the biggest magic trick of all time.
@hayshed Apparent design is not the backbone of ID. Perhaps that could be said of arguments from cosmology, but even then it's more about probability. ID is about whether you can produce complex molecular structures from the "primordial soup", which we admittedly don't even know for sure what it consisted of, using successive, slight, beneficial modifications. Again, attacking the banana argument and pretending you can, therefore, dismiss ID is at best intellectually dishonest.
The dude explains how creationists leap in with non-sequitur and that's a straw man? Or is it that he picked a particular example to illustrate this common trait (which he stated outright outside of the 'argument' analogies) that one is throwing a hissy fit over? In which case might I quote one on their jab at straw-men?
I'm always puzzled by the assumption that the universe arose from 'nothing', as though 'nothing' is even possible. The best theories in physics talk of the universe arising from quantum mechanical fluctuations in a 'false vacuum', which is crucially different from 'nothing'. One post-Hawking apologist even said we now must ask 'who created the nothingness. The whole concept of 'nothing' existing is utterly riddled with paradoxes. I see no reason to believe true nothingness is even possible.
@Aaberg123 I'm not a biologist, nor am I an expert in ID, though I've read Behe's book, Miller's book purporting to refute Behe (though both are Catholic), as well as a lot of online material such as over at Talk Origins. However, it doesn't take a professional scientist to recognize a fallacy. Attacking the absurd "banana argument" (which merely makes an argument from apparent design, which is more like arguing from a coincidence) and then acting like you've refuted ID is fallacious.
@BullInTheHeather1 I would have loved to see the expression on Derren's face when he first saw the Comfort -banana video. I thought it was a spoof of some sort when I first saw it. I was blown away when once I knew this guy really believed what he was saying.
Ha! My Grandmother DID work in a florists! IT'S A MIRACLE! P.S. Bananas don't look like they artificially selected fruit we 'designed'... they were short & fat & much less ergonomic.
everything works through repitition whether affirmations giving to the subconcious or evolution, remember how crappy computers where 20 years ago, it;s the way everything works, it all steams from one word belief, life is what you believe it to be
Yes you are right we can't prove he doesn't exist but that doesn't mean you can say he does. If everyone used the philosophy "Can't disprove it = it exists" then anyone can say anything can happen or exist (which we know isn't true). If the courts used that idea, there would be mayhem. There would be countless amounts of suspects for crimes. Atheists don't say that there isn't human morality we just say that it comes from a different source and that it isn't absolute.
@chipk77 I've yet to see any coherent arguments in favour of ID creationism, but you could perhaps point towards such argument, in an effort to escape the proposed horde of strawmen?
The modern banana WAS designed--by humans. Wild bananas are roundish, with a thick skin and lots of seeds. And they're bitter. Through selective breeding, we came up with the handy, tasty yellow fruit we find in our grocery stores today.
Such matters will drive a man insane. There's like no straight answer that you know is completely right when it comes to religion and the existance of God. So many theories and beliefs, so much anxiety.
I think Derren needs to read Flew's book There is a God. Many scientists are on the record they see Intelligence and Design in the universe: The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". Paul Davies: "
@mentalistlance its not up to us to find him, its up to him to reveal himself to us if communication with us is something he desires. i truly believe that if someone seeks a relationship with God, then God will reveal himself to that person. if all the person is seeking is God to do his bidding i.e. "make me a millionaire oh Lord" then why should God reveal himself. if we were created, then we were created for him and not the other way around Ask and ye shall recieve. (light)
If true nothingness is not possible then thee's no need for a supreme creator. Furthermore physical law is not like societal law - it's not like we can go faster than the speed of light but we shouldn't because we'll get a ticket. As for the arisal of the rules of the universe - there are plenty of competing theoretical explanations out there, any one of which would be more sensible than positing a designer with the ad hoc quality of being 'outside nature' or 'self-creating'
@fayell How do you know anything about this god? How can you even say he is not bound within time, matter and space? These are just assumptions that there are no reason to accept. I could just as likely say that since the universe and life is so complex, so filled with conflict and contradiction, so much of it poorly designed, that there HAS to be several gods competing with each other. Hence all this disease, problems, etc.
@CognitiveApprentice Thanks for yet another nice demonstration of illogic. If you don't recognize a reference to "attacking a strawman" argument, then you need to go back to logic 101.
Yup! I'd love to see the guy who uses bananas as proof of god's existence explain the same in relation to oranges (tasty but messy) or mackerel (tasty but full of bones which we keep having to fish out (no pun intended)).
@jack83perry1 "Even Charles Darwin’s own wife was a creationist" nearly every one was a creationist before darwin, so that point has no argument at all. Einstein once send (cant remember the exact quote) "I find it hard to believe in a God that allows so much evil". He also never tried to disprove god so found no reason to fully reject the idea. However, there is more evidence today that god doesn't exist (the greatest being that theist can't prove God when we would expect them to be able to).
scientists also made the laptop your using to post this on the internet that they invented,they also made the medicine and medical equipment that would have saved you or your relatives lives at some point, I think you should show some respect
Here's what Einstein had to say about God. How does it compare to the Christian concept of the almighty? "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.... (cont.)
Too many fake pseudo-spiritual individuals and alleged prophets endangered themselves to waves of depression and shock when others chastise for their ill-sincerity, which to me is much more valuable than design.....intent trumps design
That argument also holds true to you!. You also can not prove that God does not exist. You say "Einstein once said (cant remember the exact quote) "I find it hard to believe in a God that allows so much evil" So Einstein believes in Evil then? well of course he does he had witnessed it during world war two! Morality is inescapable for Human Beings and only Human Beings so far as we know!. The Truth i don't think will be found in our life time! keep an open mind until we can be certain.
@chipk77 And those arguments too have been found lacking. ALL their arguments have been found lacking. They just keep making up more to support the same conclusion which is not how science works. They are not applying the scientific method, they are merely pointing out apparent problems with evolution and saying if that doesn't explain it then their 'theory' does. And everytime a scientist swoops in and finds a rational explanation and they move on.
@CognitiveApprentice Attacking a strawman is not subjective in any way. It is addressing a weaker argument, or a misrepresentation of an argument, and then pretending that you have successfully rebutted the actual argument when you have not. This is clearly what this guy does. The fact that you think attacking a strawman requires that both parties in an argument be present makes it blatantly obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I think if god did exist it would be hard for people to prove it since where just animals, and are understandings are still primitive at best.. since we look back a 100 years and think they are primitive.. God may exist but peoples views of it maybe grossly primitive and dogmatic
So this guy attacks an argument by people who probably amount to flat-earthers and he thinks he's debunked Intelligent Design. Wow, talk about a strawman.
Great now we have mentalist slash Magician telling us what is the truth? now i like Darren Brown i think he is a great Mentalist slash Magician! but please stick to your day job Darren and don't try to tell us what you perceive to be true to apply to everybody and everything else.
He was asked the questions, not telling us on his own show. It's not like he made a PSA about his thinking. I think he's quite a brilliant man, understands the human complexity very well and uses it to make a career and a living and a name for himself. Using skills to forge something for yourself instead of depending on your neighbor. Quite the best advice for the earthly life.
@VioletRice To address the idea of an infinite universe/multiverse; That is the big hangup right now with physics and cosmology is there are 2 paths. Either all of space-time is infinite or finite. If it is finite then there must be something outside of it that brought it into being. Right now the evidence in both physics and cosmology is pointing towards there needing to be a beginning to all of space time. Whether it is one universe or a multiverse.
@VioletRice On multiverses; One of the main points of evidence on why a multiverse would need a beginning comes from Thermodynamics and the law of entropy. We end up at the point where any number of multiverses would still need to have a beginning. (Therefore not an infinite number as well.) Of course there could be more theories proposed in the future that are able to get around some of these reasons why it couldn't be infinite, but as of right now science is pointing towards the finite.
(cont.) ...I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
What I love so much about the banana argument is that bananas actually WERE designed... by MAN. The bananas in the grocery store look NOTHING like wild bananas. Those are from hundreds of years of selective breeding by humans. Wild bananas are much rounder and have seeds in them and are difficult to open, etc.
We tweaked it more than "a bit."
My point is that the specific characteristic of the modern banana that certain apologists point to as evidence of divine design are all traits that HUMANS fashioned through artificial selection.
@lostaccato Thanks. Can you still one more time to 1) Set the topic for the debate and 2) give your opening speech.
@VioletRice I agree that we have to exist in order to observe these laws, but as Stephen Hawking notes, using chance to explain how the universe and all the its laws and constants came to be is nearing ludicrous if looking at it from scientific certainty. Can't remember the physicist who calculated that the probability that all laws/constants are as they are and the state of low entropy the universe is in was about 1 to 10^10^123. A double exponent; 10 raised to a 1 with 123 0's after it.
@VioletRice It is good to realize when it is said "being" it is not meant to be being in how we think of it. That is why I try and put it in quotes. Since a being outside of space/time would not be anything that we are familiar with. You can think of this "being" on a basic level as an "unembodied mind." Philosophy does get at this "being" as being the shear act of being; being itself. We all share in being, obviously, but God would be being itself. (i.e.Creator would not be inside the creation)
I think what you mean is that some Christians also studied science and forced what they had been told about Christianity and God onto what they saw in science. All ideas about how 'marvellous' and 'ideal' our Earth is, or the laws of physics are... stem from something that is often overlooked. The way things are here just happens to be the way that means we can exist. We don't know how many universes appeared and imploded before ours 'clicked'.
N.B. 'who created the nothingness' in my previous post is a single quote - forgot to book-end it with an inverted comma.
I thought when ppl talk about intelligent design they refer to the laws of nature. DNA is the building blocks of every cell. We didn't intelligently design ourselves or our children, all we do is learn from nature and be inspired to also be creative, something limited to the human species, though all species are pre-programmed with creating for survival needs, like building their nest or burrows, etc. Science has disproved free will so it raises more questions of what and who are we.
@lostaccato I belive that we live in reality (that we can observe currently by our senses and by our technology (call it "extended senses")). We define the reality based on what we can currently understand and we push the limits of our understanding on a daily basis.
@zebb1111 Do you understand how our brains work? Have you heard the concept of mental construction of the world. To put it simply - the world we see around us is not real as we think it is. We, each one of us, create it inside our heads from the information we obtain through our senses and from the parts that we happen to remember. So, the video you see in youtube is not the same video as I see because we interpret it on our unique way by reflecting it against our memories, experiences, etc.
@VioletRice Good questions, a decent primer to the answer of what physics and cosmology is going after right now can be found in a 12- part series on here called, "God and Modern Physics." The man who does them is accomplished in physics, cosmology, and metaphyscis. I would watch those 12 first, but the I would go out and do your own research of what is going in modern science in regards to the beginning times.
Ray Comfort was so close to convincing me....until I remember about Pineapples, Durians and Coconuts.
Serious physicists & cosmologists do agree that if this is the only or 1 of only several universes, that the probability of the laws and constants being exactly what they are to support human life is so infinitesimally small, as a scientist they say it doesnt make any sense to say that this all happened by chance. So now to try and explain this is the multi-verse; but still as of right now all the theories lead to a distinct beginning, meaning you would need a "creator". We will see...
I think he is so handsome and eloquent.
@drjohnswilkins I was going to bring up that precise point. It's quite amazing how many foods and animals these days that we do take for granted, but literally would not exist in the form that we know them if it weren't for our deliberate interference.
@VioletRice I would argue that there is a huge difference between a mutiverse and God. The critical difference: A multiverse would still be within a physical space-time, whereas God would be outside of space/time. Meaning a multiverse still needs an explanation for where it came from.
We've just tweaked it a bit. We hardly came up with it.
@VioletRice If physics and cosmology keep moving on that path and show scientifically that the universe needs to have some distinct beginning, we then get to the point were we either admit there is some being outside of space-time that created all by a first cause. Or we just throw our hands up and say that something did really come from *absolute* nothing. Which most feel would be the biggest magic trick of all time.
@hayshed Apparent design is not the backbone of ID. Perhaps that could be said of arguments from cosmology, but even then it's more about probability. ID is about whether you can produce complex molecular structures from the "primordial soup", which we admittedly don't even know for sure what it consisted of, using successive, slight, beneficial modifications. Again, attacking the banana argument and pretending you can, therefore, dismiss ID is at best intellectually dishonest.
The dude explains how creationists leap in with non-sequitur and that's a straw man?
Or is it that he picked a particular example to illustrate this common trait (which he stated outright outside of the 'argument' analogies) that one is throwing a hissy fit over? In which case might I quote one on their jab at straw-men?
I'm always puzzled by the assumption that the universe arose from 'nothing', as though 'nothing' is even possible. The best theories in physics talk of the universe arising from quantum mechanical fluctuations in a 'false vacuum', which is crucially different from 'nothing'. One post-Hawking apologist even said we now must ask 'who created the nothingness. The whole concept of 'nothing' existing is utterly riddled with paradoxes. I see no reason to believe true nothingness is even possible.
@Aaberg123 I'm not a biologist, nor am I an expert in ID, though I've read Behe's book, Miller's book purporting to refute Behe (though both are Catholic), as well as a lot of online material such as over at Talk Origins. However, it doesn't take a professional scientist to recognize a fallacy. Attacking the absurd "banana argument" (which merely makes an argument from apparent design, which is more like arguing from a coincidence) and then acting like you've refuted ID is fallacious.
@BullInTheHeather1 I would have loved to see the expression on Derren's face when he first saw the Comfort -banana video.
I thought it was a spoof of some sort when I first saw it. I was blown away when once I knew this guy really believed what he was saying.
Ha! My Grandmother DID work in a florists! IT'S A MIRACLE!
P.S. Bananas don't look like they artificially selected fruit we 'designed'... they were short & fat & much less ergonomic.
I think you misspelled 'religious people!'
everything works through repitition whether affirmations giving to the subconcious or evolution, remember how crappy computers where 20 years ago, it;s the way everything works, it all steams from one word belief, life is what you believe it to be
Yes you are right we can't prove he doesn't exist but that doesn't mean you can say he does. If everyone used the philosophy "Can't disprove it = it exists" then anyone can say anything can happen or exist (which we know isn't true). If the courts used that idea, there would be mayhem. There would be countless amounts of suspects for crimes. Atheists don't say that there isn't human morality we just say that it comes from a different source and that it isn't absolute.
@Ramohog You literally made all of that up.
If the room was to spontaneously combust, Warburton would be toast.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Not like he wants everyone to take over his way of thinking. Hes just throwing knowledge out there. And if you ask me hes right.
@Ramohog It does not imply intelligence, that's just how you see it.
So who did he make melons for?
@chipk77
I've yet to see any coherent arguments in favour of ID creationism, but you could perhaps point towards such argument, in an effort to escape the proposed horde of strawmen?
Very hole tempting Derren. :D
The modern banana WAS designed--by humans.
Wild bananas are roundish, with a thick skin and lots of seeds. And they're bitter. Through selective breeding, we came up with the handy, tasty yellow fruit we find in our grocery stores today.
Such matters will drive a man insane. There's like no straight answer that you know is completely right when it comes to religion and the existance of God. So many theories and beliefs, so much anxiety.
I think Derren needs to read Flew's book There is a God. Many scientists are on the record they see Intelligence and Design in the universe:
The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The
universe must have a purpose".
Paul Davies: "
I would like to apologise for the above comment.
@ZenoKameno true
Semantics. We manipulated what nature gave us.
@mentalistlance its not up to us to find him, its up to him to reveal himself to us if communication with us is something he desires. i truly believe that if someone seeks a relationship with God, then God will reveal himself to that person. if all the person is seeking is God to do his bidding i.e. "make me a millionaire oh Lord" then why should God reveal himself. if we were created, then we were created for him and not the other way around
Ask and ye shall recieve. (light)
If true nothingness is not possible then thee's no need for a supreme creator. Furthermore physical law is not like societal law - it's not like we can go faster than the speed of light but we shouldn't because we'll get a ticket. As for the arisal of the rules of the universe - there are plenty of competing theoretical explanations out there, any one of which would be more sensible than positing a designer with the ad hoc quality of being 'outside nature' or 'self-creating'
Lmao the ray comfort argument
@BullInTheHeather1 ...and thank godness he didn't put that err... 'peeling' mechanism on everything banana shaped
@fayell How do you know anything about this god? How can you even say he is not bound within time, matter and space? These are just assumptions that there are no reason to accept.
I could just as likely say that since the universe and life is so complex, so filled with conflict and contradiction, so much of it poorly designed, that there HAS to be several gods competing with each other. Hence all this disease, problems, etc.
@zebb1111 Are you interested in real honest debate?
@CognitiveApprentice Thanks for yet another nice demonstration of illogic. If you don't recognize a reference to "attacking a strawman" argument, then you need to go back to logic 101.
Yup! I'd love to see the guy who uses bananas as proof of god's existence explain the same in relation to oranges (tasty but messy) or mackerel (tasty but full of bones which we keep having to fish out (no pun intended)).
@jack83perry1 "Even Charles Darwin’s own wife was a creationist" nearly every one was a creationist before darwin, so that point has no argument at all. Einstein once send (cant remember the exact quote) "I find it hard to believe in a God that allows so much evil". He also never tried to disprove god so found no reason to fully reject the idea. However, there is more evidence today that god doesn't exist (the greatest being that theist can't prove God when we would expect them to be able to).
while all these fools are arguing about religion, I am enjoying the naughtiness of the 'banana analogy'. Oh Darren, you naughty boy! 3:31- really?
@chipk77
He attacks the apparent design argument, which I believe is the backbone of ID. Well that and "God did it".
scientists also made the laptop your using to post this on the internet that they invented,they also made the medicine and medical equipment that would have saved you or your relatives lives at some point, I think you should show some respect
Here's what Einstein had to say about God. How does it compare to the Christian concept of the almighty?
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.... (cont.)
I can make a lot of BS Stories that tell about places that does exist....doesn't make the story real, does it?
Bannanas are infact designed... by us
Too many fake pseudo-spiritual individuals and alleged prophets endangered themselves to waves of depression and shock when others chastise for their ill-sincerity, which to me is much more valuable than design.....intent trumps design
@BullInTheHeather1 ...and thanks godness he didn't put that err... 'peeling' mechanism on everything banana shaped
That argument also holds true to you!. You also can not prove that God does not exist. You say "Einstein once said (cant remember the exact quote) "I find it hard to believe in a God that allows so much evil" So Einstein believes in Evil then? well of course he does he had witnessed it during world war two! Morality is inescapable for Human Beings and only Human Beings so far as we know!. The Truth i don't think will be found in our life time! keep an open mind until we can be certain.
@chipk77
And those arguments too have been found lacking. ALL their arguments have been found lacking. They just keep making up more to support the same conclusion which is not how science works. They are not applying the scientific method, they are merely pointing out apparent problems with evolution and saying if that doesn't explain it then their 'theory' does. And everytime a scientist swoops in and finds a rational explanation and they move on.
It's certainly quite noisy. :3
Bot ID and evolution can coexist...
HIghly unlikely this room to spontaneously combust...
Derren: Certainly quite noisy.
haha nice
'Certainly quite noisy' xD
@CognitiveApprentice Attacking a strawman is not subjective in any way. It is addressing a weaker argument, or a misrepresentation of an argument, and then pretending that you have successfully rebutted the actual argument when you have not. This is clearly what this guy does. The fact that you think attacking a strawman requires that both parties in an argument be present makes it blatantly obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Please, if you have children, do not expose them to this type of voodoo.
It seems it has had a big influence on you.
I think if god did exist it would be hard for people to prove it since where just animals, and are understandings are still primitive at best.. since we look back a 100 years and think they are primitive.. God may exist but peoples views of it maybe grossly primitive and dogmatic
There are no scientists that think it happened that way. You are using a straw-man argument.
I designed the universe, you are all just a hallucination or dream. lol
So this guy attacks an argument by people who probably amount to flat-earthers and he thinks he's debunked Intelligent Design. Wow, talk about a strawman.
=D
them smart. lol
BANANA MAN
Great now we have mentalist slash Magician telling us what is the truth? now i like Darren Brown i think he is a great Mentalist slash Magician! but please stick to your day job Darren and don't try to tell us what you perceive to be true to apply to everybody and everything else.
@omgiwaswrong thereby insuring that only large brained animals could recieve its fruit. sorry your having so much trouble opening coconuts
@zebb1111 Please do yourself a favor and don't discuss matters you have no understanding of.
You're using a computer, hypocrite.