Creation is a Scientific Fact

Originally posted by AshleyD
Oh dear me. Another canard: Those pesky unintelligent and dishonest little creationists. This thread is turning into a Where's Waldo game. Let's dress the canards up into a red and white striped shirt, give them a funny hat with a ball on the top, and try to find as many as we can.

Don't think I quite said that. I guess it's part of the martyr syndrome.

Essentially you decided to take a fairly decent analogy about anthropic thinking from a post that had a few thread-salient points and twist it to your own ends completely ignoring the original point?

OK.

They see it from a materialistic perspective which blinded them from seeing any further concerning the fate of the puddle. It's a poor analogy. Plain and simple.

Nope. It's just that you would rather try to obfuscate. But I'm not surprised in the least. As I noted, the thread will be a waste of bandwidth.

Have fun!

ABE: nice to see someone fisked whammy on multiverse physics. Not surprised the intellectual dishonesty selective memory raised its head.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Don't think I quite said that. I guess it's part of the martyr syndrome.

Yes you did and nope, no martyr syndrome:

"I suppose it does when it fails to be understood and is misused by creationists."

No worries, though. It is typical ATT behavior and I am used to it. Something is questioned or argued just resort to the 'Pfft! Typical dishonest, confused, and stupid creationist' ploy.

Fails to be understood = Stupid, confused.
Misused: Dishonest.

No, Mel. I simply disagreed.

Originally posted by AshleyD
"I suppose it does when it fails to be understood and is misused by creationists."

Pure observation, dear. The failing to understand was the more positive interpretation. The other was that you selected that one small part of my post which was not even for your consumption (other overlooked parts were) for disingenious obfuscation.

I tried the nicer interpretation. I do try to see the best in people. But I sort of knew it was just pure obfuscation - a diversion into off-topic trash.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Anything except admitting it is a poor analogy from your end, eh?

Oh well. Off topic trash ended. ATS's bandwith is safe and sound.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by Sunsetspawn


I am not lying. It's just plain absurd. You are dreaming if you think that a few anomalies in deep space even comes close to proving there are an infinite number of universes.

Truthfully the very term multiple universes is a canard by definition anyway. That's why it's such a joke...

I checked the Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto which said:

"Universe denotes etymologically 'turned into one,' hence 'whole, indivisible.' It goes back ultimately to Latin universus 'whole, entire,' a compound adjective formed from unus 'one' and versus, the past participle vertere 'turn.' Its neuter form, universum, was used as a noun meaning the 'whole world' (based on the model of Greek to holon 'the whole'), and this passed into English via Old French univers. The Latin derivative universalis gave English universal."

Uni = one - it means the whole of everything that exists.

"Ohhh nooooes just add universes"

pretty weak.



[edit on 7/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by bigbert81



So, let me get this straight...

Is that possible for you [SNIP]? Seems to me everytime I see you respond to whammy, you are responding to imaginary posts he never made or statements you hallucinated. I don't know why he responds to you but you could have the good graces to apologise for putting words in his mouth again or is that too much of a nexus for you?

My suggestion to whammy would be not to feed the trolls seeing you seem to follow him around spitting out pieces of your broken understanding of each and everyone of his posts.

You make a video about the Big Bang (which I don't doubt at all, despite what your atheist rules tell you), AND 'the cosmological argument for the existence of a supernatural Creator', and I have 'primitive thinking'?

Whats a matter Big,, is God out of style this year?

Let's see here:

Okaaaaay, am I the only one that sees something wrong with this? So this video basically says that because our universe exists despite odds to which are truly unknown due to the probability of creation through sheer numbers alone, that God must have created it. C'mon Whammy, come up with something solid here.

Like what? Whatcha got?

And let me get this part straight too. You are saying (because you don't have the explanation yourself, therefore don't know) that something supernatural just made the universe for/with a cause, and I'M the primitive thinker here? Hmmm, 'I don't know, so let's just say God did it' is not the 'advanced thinking' you might think it is.

So if God did it and he isn't in style anymore than you say that isn't very advanced thinking? is there ever a time you would think God doing anything is advanced? Or is it anything with religious implications just turns you off on it?

I betcha thats what it is huh

The God did it thing lol

Funny stuff

pffft

- Con

Mod Edit:
Removed unnecessary name-calling.
Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by John_Q_Llama
Bigwhammy, nice video. While I no longer adhere to the belief that the only way our universe came to exist is by the work of God, I enjoyed your work. At the very least it was a good take on your point of view.

Thank you, for the compliment and the well thought out post.

A few things came to mind as I watched it, and I will readily admit that some of it is quite abstract and unconventional. However I feel that any theory that man comes up with at this point in time is not likely to be proven true. There is far too much that we do not know about, and the result is that we are forced to base conclusions on theories about things like the Big Bang on what amounts to unprovable, though educated, guesses. Mind you, those guesses may lean heavily on scientific data, but there are far too many holes in our knowledge of space, time, and the universe, to go ahead and claim that any theory is THE right one.

Well its the evidence that backs up the theory right? Well creation has all the evidence in its favor. Einsteins general relativity requires a finite universe - he fought the idea too and tried to create a cosmological constant to make the math work with an infinite universe. After Hubble's discovery Einstein called it the greatest mistake of his career.

On to my thoughts...

What if what we call the universe is not everything? I mean, if you look at pictures from our universe you see tons of galaxies. What if our universe, as we call it, is like a galaxy in a much bigger place, with tons of other universes? With our current technology it is challenging to observe what we believe to be the oldest objects in the universe, and those claims are frequently updated with new observations of even older objects. But what is beyond those? What if there is something we cannot see because it's so far beyond the edge of our "universe"? Perhaps this isn't an issue, because I'm sure the creation supporter will still insist that all of those "universes" had to be made somehow.

Obviously I don't believe the universe is everything because I am making a bold claim that it had an intelligent creator. And he would fit your above description well and he makes those exact claims about himself.

“To whom will you compare Me? Or who is My equal?” says the Holy One. Lift your eyes to the heavens and see who has created them, He who brings out the starry host by number and calls them each by name. Because of His great might and the strength of His power, not one of them is missing. Do you not know? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not grow tired or weary. No one can fathom His understanding. (Isaiah 40:25-26, 28)

Your video does not address the oscillating universe theory. I'd like to learn your thoughts on that.

I do not know not a lot about it. Other than it's very tenuous. From my examinations the evidence is sorely lacking. It's not evidence as much as conjecture. From my reading the alternatives to the Big Bang have been presented by disgruntled materialists desperately trying to escape the philosophical implications of the creation event. The same crew that clung to the steady state theory with quasi religious fervor.

String theory does raise almost spiritual questions however. And makes miracles seem possible. Our understanding always grows deeper. I am always willing to learn.

There is something that bothers me about the claim that huge odds were overcome for our universe to wind up the way it is. To me it seems that the creation perspective assumes that the only way things turned out the way they have is because something supernatural intervened. But what if the way physics, chemistry, biology, etc. operate, convene in such a way that those odds are totally inaccurate? Is there anything that dictates that if we could create 1 billion universes in test tubes and observe the product, that there couldn't be 250 million like ours?

You raise some interesting issues... but the anthropic principle is talking about the fundamental constants are tuned for carbon based life to exist right here on earth. I admit it seems very earth-centric but the more we learn the more special this place is. Carl Sagans' famous quote about how we live on a "an unremarkable planet.... blah blah" has backfired and embarrassed him now. The evidence is we live on an overwhelmingly remarkable planet, in an incredibly fine tuned position for life to flourish.

Refer to this Link

The Lord who created the heavens, He is God. He fashioned and made the earth and established it; He did not create it to be empty but formed it to be inhabited. He is the Lord, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:18)

Also I guess people have profound misunderstanding of the word universe.
I checked the Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto which said:

"Universe denotes etymologically 'turned into one,' hence 'whole, indivisible.' It goes back ultimately to Latin universus 'whole, entire,' a compound adjective formed from unus 'one' and versus, the past participle vertere 'turn.' Its neuter form, universum, was used as a noun meaning the 'whole world' (based on the model of Greek to holon 'the whole'), and this passed into English via Old French univers. The Latin derivative universalis gave English universal."

Uni = one Verse = words.
Sound familiar? God Spoke the entire universe into existence.... WOW!

Lastly, I have a question for you Bigwhammy. I noticed that in your video you did not really breach the subject of religion. However, when people see God being associated with any sort of creation, they jump to the conclusion that the God being mentioned is the God of Christianity. Is that an accurate assumption?

I wasn't ashamed at all to put Bible verses in the video. Make no bones about it, I am a Bible believing Christian. I just do not accept that you have to check your brains at the door of the church when you enter. I don't think God wants that either. There's a lot of evidence for Christianity But that's another can of worms...

My goal simply was to show the philosophical and spiritual implications of the Big Bang. Which is why materialist scientists fought so hard against the Big Bang. I see the same thing happening with Intelligent Design right now. They don't even want it discussed it threatens their world view so bad.

Thanks for sharing your work. Keep it up! Though not everyone is going to agree with what you put into it, I hope that doesn't discourage you from exercising your creativity and skills in the future.

Thank you so much for a very polite and for the well thought out post. I can tell we don't agree on everything but it was a pleasure to respond to someone, who was respectful and appreciative of the time I put in it.

Thanks Again

Originally posted by bigbert81


And I wonder, did you even bother to read my last post? Yes, I did hear Dr. Lennox describe the 'red coin' thing, and him admitting to a 'chance', especially when it's not known how many 'chances' are given in any period of time (I have a 1 in 10 chance of picking the right number, but I get 100 tries every day), does by no means make it 'impossible', as you would like your viewers to believe.

Ironic isn't it, when evolutionists want probability to give there arguments more creedence then it is WE who are to yeild to its awesome persuasion.

Thing is the 100 tries a day is meaningless in probability and the odds get worse not better bertrude

I don't think I've ever dealt with anyone as delusional as you are. Firstly, you claim that you 'trounced' me on my 'What the World Needs...' thread, and now you accuse me of using a strawman technique? Get real, Whammy. I am sticking with the issues here, so to try and use poorly suited accusations as a means of winning your argument is low, very low, even for you.

Bert the ONLY thing you have done is established a scientific method arguing the logical fallacy for fashion and what is in style THAT'S IT!

You have opionated the entire base of your argument predicated on the supposition of modernism and materialism two more "ism's" the world can ignore and not miss out on a damn thing.

No, Whammy. Just because it exists does not mean it has a cause. You're making stuff up again.

HUH?? what?? HA HA HA say that again! Here let me throw a rock at the back of your head and after it hits your occipital bone and you turn around darwhining "who threw that! " Ill remember to say, just because something hit you doesn't mean there was a cause. lol

Here now, I would assume that we would need some sort of definition of what 'God' is. Knowing you are a Christian, I have to assume that when you say 'God', you are referring to the Christian God. I hope you, of course, are NOT making the crucial mistake of saying that 'A (being the definition of 'supernatural')=X ('supernatural') and B (definition of 'God')=Y (God)', therefore X must equal Y, because that's what I'm seeing going on here. Because of this, I can't quite agree with your 'reasonable inference' label.

mmm I don't see why not? The math wrong?

It talks of a MULTIverse, not a UNIverse. It has more explanations in it than 'Well something had to create it, so therefore God exists'. This link is a much more scientifically accepted model to the uni/multiverse's origin and creation.

This link alone should help get those wheels turning. THIS is quickly becoming the 'consensus'. Sorry if it blows your theory about God and the creator of the Big Bang sky high...

Problem with the multi universe is that it can assume elvis is somewhere playing a concert yankee stadium which is the reason it is so attractive to people like you bert who secretly know the truth and if God is the truth and the light then you will run from the light. Or is that "primitive" thinking ?

You 'know', or you want to believe? How noble you are when someone challenges your belief in God, and therefore your faith. I'm sure you'll get extra points for that one, so feel good about it, since you have apparently shut your mind off to other possibilities. Of course, EVERYONE 'knows' their beliefs are correct, right?

You seem rather fond of your opinions too bert. Thing is we don't choose to believe what suits our fancy, YOUR lifestyle and the choices you allow yourself to indulge in are far more attractive and much much easier to agree with than ours. So it really has nothing to do with what WE think but everything to do with what God reveals is true.

That doesn't always fit in with our way.

Yes, poor little me, who challenges my beliefs over and over again in an attempt to gain more knowledge. Pity me, please...oh wait, you apparently already do. It must feel good to just shut out all evidence and science for a belief system for which you feel comfortable, doesn't it? BTW, I've never admitted to being an atheist.

*shakes head again*

You may as well be,, the consequences are the same regardless.

Ahhh yes, and here come the insults. Boy, it's a good thing that you felt your post wasn't quite complete without the usual insult thrown in at the last moment. I was getting worried there.

I think you lost the right to whine about that the moment you mocked him for his "God did it" idiocy and ,, of course his sensless taste in fashionable Science



- Con







[edit on 5-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Uni = one - it means the whole of everything that exists.

"Ohhh nooooes just add universes"

pretty weak.

And yet you think what you have presented is scientific fact for creation and creator, lol.

This will be my one foray into whammy world for this week. The idea of multiverses is actually a consequence of modern physics, it wasn't just dreamed up to ruin your anthropic fine-tuning argument (although, the hindus will like the idea). Your favoured physics supporting big bang cosmology is most likely incomplete, it breaks down before planck time. It fails. It is useful, but is most probably not the final word. Other cosmologies go beyond it. At some point the classical and quantum might be brought under some grand theory.

Quantum cosmological theories are now pretty much accepted as being of value. Being able to make verifiable and falsifiable hypotheses. I'll let Paul Davies outline it for you. He is a past winner of the Templeton prize (ugh!).

Recent developments in particle physics, quantum mechanics and cosmology lead naturally to the postulate of an ensemble of universes, or multiverse. Some extension to the restricted view that “what you see is what you get” would surely seem both inevitable and reasonable to all but the most out-and-out logical positivist, if only because the limits imposed by the cosmological particle horizon are merely relative to our specific cosmic location. Although direct confirmation of other universes, or regions of our universe, may be infeasible or even impossible in principle, nevertheless the multiverse theory does make some observable predictions and can be tested.

Linky-dink

Which is more than can be said about your retreat to gap-filling. I can't wait for the squirming when the data really starts piling in, rofl. And as noted, some very tentative and controversial findings suggestive of multiverse cosmology are already being uncovered.

Science won't stop because you like gaps into which your puppy can be shoved.

ABE: some food for thought from a modern cosmologist...

Google Video Link

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I am familiar with the implications of string theory and multiple dimensions. But multiple dimensions are not multiple universes... The Universe is one by definition.


Smart guy but he created canards like "imaginary time" to justify his M theory calculations. It's on the same level of a Shirley McClain meditation book. New Age dreaming.

And quite frankly those implications do a lot more damage to the materialist side of the argument than the believers. I mean being in two places at the same time as electrons appear to do is quite miraculous.

Like something *cough cough* God-like...

This stuff is highly debated and not even close to level of evidence that supports a finite created and anthropologically tuned universe. Not even close an you know it.

I bet the the "Theory of Everything" will be discovered fairly soon.

Guess what it is mel?

"Goddidit !!! "

Although direct confirmation of other universes, or regions of our universe, may be infeasible or even impossible in principle,

Now that's a rich escape hatch there. Well there is no evidence and it's not possible to observe. But we BELIEVE it anyway. That's not science. That's pure faith. It's exactly why you attempt to criticize religion...

Yet you logically fail, because Christianity has fulfilled prophecies and lots of anecdotal and historical evidence to back it up.

All you have... your faith

I'll stick with evidence.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I am familiar with the implications of string theory and multiple dimensions. But multiple dimensions are not multiple universes... The Universe is one by definition.

And so you rely on a traditional dictionary like definition, lol. 'But it says 'UNI', therefore that means one and all!11!1one'

I can see why the march of science scares you.

This stuff is highly debated and not even close to level of evidence that supports a finite created and anthropologically tuned universe. Not even close an you know it.

But you don't have any evidence. All you have is 'gee, it's all so amazing and unlikely that we exist in a universe where gravity works...therefore god'.

"Goddidit !!! "

Oooookaaaaaay....

Now that's a rich escape hatch there. Well there is no evidence and it's not possible to observe. But we BELIEVE it anyway.

That's not science. That's pure faith. It's exactly why you attempt to criticize religion...

No, it means we may well be unable to directly confirm such hypotheses. It doesn't mean we can't indirectly confirm them. And there are testable and falsifiable hypotheses. I can see that some creationists will be living in the past on this as well as physics trundles along knocking over any traditional sensibilities.

This is why I love science. It just don't care.

Yet you logically fail, because Christianity has fulfilled prophecies and lots of anecdotal and historical evidence to back it up.

All you have... your faith

I'll stick with evidence.

And so we fall back even further to the words of your holy book. Well, the scientific facts never lasted very long, rofl.

reply to post by melatonin

But you don't have any evidence. All you have is 'gee, it's all so amazing and unlikely that we exist in a universe where gravity works...therefore god'.

I can answer this with your answer to my point... about your untestable and laughable pseudoscience rationalizations...

You just said:

No, it means we may well be unable to directly confirm such hypotheses. It doesn't mean we can't indirectly confirm them.

So right back at you... ROFL!

This is why I love science. It just don't care.

Hmmm, that's the difference alright.

The reason I love Jesus is he does care.

And so we fall back even further to the words of your holy book. Well, the scientific facts never lasted very long, rofl.

No most science often doesn't last does it? It can be rather like womens fashions. So it would be pretty silly to base your entire life and world view on it. oh noooooes that's you mel!

As Albert Einstein said...

The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

I'll stick with Albert. Science alone is lame.

Unlike the fickle theories of fallible men the Bible has remained constant other than translations. It is no accident a book 1000s of years old is still so relevant that Billions still live by it.

Hey mel guess what - God did do it! Sorry denying reality doesn't change it.

Wisdom is different than knowledge.



Sorry but she has far more wisdom than you do.

Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15-17)

See I proved it!

Happy now?

This video is idiotic.

First off, whoever narrated it is a terrible speaker. Whoever produced it failed to normalize the voice track properly.

But whoever wrote is is a scientific ignoramus.

One, it sums up all atheists as materialists, which is absolutely bigoted, moronic, and downright insulting.

Two, it fails to provide any evidence for an intelligent designer. It attempts to do this by stating that the universe is "fine tuned" for life, completely disregarding the fact that the universe is how life began in the first place. Life is "fine tuned" for the universe, or else it would not survive and therefore it would not exist.

But what really annoys me is one, the childish generalization of all atheists or materialists. This should be removed from ATS for that alone.


This video is terribly made, poorly narrated, and scientific bull#.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike
This video is idiotic.

First off, whoever narrated it is a terrible speaker. Whoever produced it failed to normalize the voice track properly.

Terrible speaker? Comparatively to whom?

But whoever wrote is is a scientific ignoramus.

Ungrounded speculation.

One, it sums up all atheists as materialists, which is absolutely bigoted, moronic, and downright insulting.

All intelligent Atheists are naturalists; naturalism is scientific materialism. That means that atheists practice materialism, which means they are materialists.

The only 2 exceptions are; if there is an atheist who believes there is not G*d, but has no reasons for his/her belief. AKA a fool. Or, an atheist who believes he/she is a fool.

So . . . I believe this makes your crass post incorrect unless you'd like to say you're one of the two possible exceptions to the rule.

Two, it fails to provide any evidence for an intelligent designer. It attempts to do this by stating that the universe is "fine tuned" for life, completely disregarding the fact that the universe is how life began in the first place. Live is "fine tuned" for the universe, or else it would not survive and therefor it would not exist.

The videos purpose was not to give evidence for an intelligent designer. It is to demonstrate that the universe, more likely than not, was created through the "big bang" theory. The second half of your paragraph is either highly illogical or has grammatical errors.

L2R

I think you're trying to say this

But what really annoys me is one, the childish generalization of all atheists or materialists. This should be removed from ATS for that alone. This video is terribly made, poorly narrated, and scientific bull#.

Well thank you for for asserting that the video has childish generalizations, by contributing one of your own.

[edit on 7/5/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
So right back at you... ROFL!

So you have testable and falsifiable claims?

No, thought not...

The reason I love Jesus is he does care.

Anthropic universe and anthropomorphic god. Quite a simplistic egocentric view.

As Albert Einstein said...

The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

I'll stick with Albert. Science alone is lame.

Do you also agree with him that: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"

See I proved it!

Happy now?

Well done.

Originally posted by melatonin
A bit like how organisms turn back into the component parts on death and provide sustenance and materials for new organisms? Or like how we are made of recycled stars?

The universe is quite stunning. To think you really are made of stardust.

Or do you mean in a way like your personality/soul will supposedly survive death?

I'm going to guess that you're a big fan of "The Fountain"? If you aren't, i'm surprised. If you haven't seen the movie, I suggest you do. It's one of my favorites.

reply to post by melatonin

So you have testable and falsifiable claims?

No, thought not...

Yes I do. If you humbly approach God with sincerity and faith he will reveal himself to you. You will know he is real... I tested it - and it's true.

But yes the anthropic principle in cosmology has lots of evidence.
It's just science mel try it sometime.

Anthropic universe and anthropomorphic god. Quite a simplistic egocentric view.

"everything about the universe tends toward humans, toward making life possible and sustaining it" - Hugh Ross
www.reasons.org...

Quite the contrary sir. You are the egoist. You even deny the existence of God. That is the absolute peak of egocentric arrogance. Wow - the blinding ignorance hurts my head.

Do you also agree with him that: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"

Hmm he says "for Him" so I can't presume to agree or disagree with how it is "for him" . At least he acknowledges it as the word of God though...

Obviously Gods word is not that way "for me" or I wouldn;t be quoting it. So are you really asking me a question? No... your trying to avoid the point he made. Einstein was a deist. But he believed in a Creator - and that is the topic. He knew better than to put all his eggs in one basket.

Well done.

Thanks but I can't take credit. The little girl did all the hard work for me.

ready to do some real science? mel when we die - the God hypothesis is falsifiable...

So how confident are you?

in your theory



[edit on 7/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by JPhish
Terrible speaker? Comparatively to whom?

Okay, fine.

Originally posted by JPhish
All intelligent Atheists are naturalists; naturalism is scientific materialism. That means that atheists practice materialism, which means they are materialists.

The only 2 exceptions are; if there is an atheist who believes there is not G*d, but has no reasons for his/her belief. AKA a fool. Or, an atheist who believes he/she is a fool.

...No, there are all sorts of atheistic philosophy, such as existentialism, nihilism (those two are the big ones that go against sorts of materialism), Kantianism, objectivism, humanism... Give me a break.

Originally posted by JPhish
The videos purpose was not to give evidence for an intelligent designer. It is to demonstrate that the universe, more likely than not, was created through the "big bang" theory. The second half of your paragraph is either highly illogical or has grammatical errors.

I made errors I fixed in an edit you failed to include in your post, probably because I took too long. For some reason preview post doesn't save changes for me, so it's easier to post and revise.

Thanks for complaining about it though.


The video claims to prove creation. The OP of this thread titled it not "The big bang is a scientific fact," but, "Creation is a scientific fact." Additionally, the video attempts, and fails, to prove creationism. It was poor and vague, but it did, especially with the last quote.

And the quoting of biblical passages, but I don't complain about it much unless they're used out of context.
...Though now that I mention it, they sort of were.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Johnmike]

reply to post by Johnmike


Thanks for the technical criticism. Hmm the voice overs were a first takes and I was too lazy to redo any of it but I said it was a first draft. I didn't think I was a terrible speaker. I think its more like sour grapes...

It was very normalized in that I used a waves RVOX compressor and a L1 limiter on the voice track. Plus a Sony oxford brick wall on the main bus. So that was completely off base.

Anyway since you were so disappointed I have decided to make it up to you.

Here's a full refund of your ticket price

Don;t spend it all in one place!

Originally posted by Johnmike
This video is idiotic.

First off, whoever narrated it is a terrible speaker. Whoever produced it failed to normalize the voice track properly.

But whoever wrote is is a scientific ignoramus.

One, it sums up all atheists as materialists, which is absolutely bigoted, moronic, and downright insulting.

Two, it fails to provide any evidence for an intelligent designer. It attempts to do this by stating that the universe is "fine tuned" for life, completely disregarding the fact that the universe is how life began in the first place. Life is "fine tuned" for the universe, or else it would not survive and therefore it would not exist.

But what really annoys me is one, the childish generalization of all atheists or materialists. This should be removed from ATS for that alone.


This video is terribly made, poorly narrated, and scientific bull#.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Johnmike]

All your Darwhining Atheist sensitivities fall on deaf ears. I think Atheists lost the right to claim bigotry after astyanax created the "Creationists are destroying ATS" thread without it being removed.

We lived, so will you, so get over it.

BTW the video, was so much better than the one you didn't make

- Con

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Conspiriology]