"When I look at a building, how can I know there was a build-ERR? Can't see him, hear him, touch him, taste him or smell him, so how can i know there was a build-ERR?... Well the building is absolute proof there was a build-ERR. I couldn't want better proof there was a build-ERR""When I look at a painting, how can I know there was a paint-ERR? Can't see him, hear him, touch him, taste him or smell him, so how can i know there was a paint-ERR?... Well the painting is absolute proof there was a paint-ERR. I couldn't want better proof there was a paint-ERR"
BWAHAHAHA his accent is funny....
but seriously now, although i lean more towards atheisms than agnosticism, i believe that it really is physically and philosophically impossile to prove either that a God does or does not exist, so i try not to get into arguements with creationists. Although i believe the evidence points more toward there not being a God, i believe trying to prove there is not one is an exercise in futility.
By way of comparison, the complexity of many languages by which we can describe both concrete and abstract concepts appears to have been invented by a council. The Latin case system is a prime example... this seemingly elegant system has been proven to be a result of the decay of auxilairies, which themselves are the decay of abstract verbs, which themselves are the decay of concrete verbs. All language, with its thousands of word-categories, phonological systems and varieties, is likely a decay of concrete nouns, verbs and the two cardinal demonstratives (this, that). This is a pattern seen even in recorded language history, which is projected into pre-historical times and is able to expalin how language cold even have evolved from a series of grunts, (as long as those grunts were distinctly unique and at one point corresponded to a handful of concrete objects and simple actions). So an outward appearance of complexity does not necessarily dictate the presence of a creator. In language, the evidence points toward chaos and disorder *creating* order in a condenced, rich and convenient form (a theory propagated in "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher).... The comparison is not 100% relevant, but shows to a certain extent, how complexity can arise from simplicity in a medium which we use daily without thinking...
...but how do we know that syntax, semantics and pragmatics were not place in our brains by a creator, ie. the Tower of Babel story? Well, we don't. Trying to prove or disprove the Tower of Babel is an exercise in futility... The creator of these proto-languages *could* have invented them and implanted them in the brains or the tower build-ERRS, with the corresponding "proof" that these languages already were spoken before and changed and evolved from a corresponding ancestor, to their contemporary forms, how do we know? The fact is, it very well could have happened that way, but... but I chose to believe that the evidence points toward there not being a creator of language... i believe that the Tower of Babel explanation contains too many ifs and buts and is surrounded by stories of other "unlikely" events (and by "unlikely" i mean not relevant or current to my personal experience)...
Think of it this way, how do we know that history was not implanted in our brains, and that everything we remember did not happen but was merely emplanted in our brains to make us believe we are part of some glorious civilisation (eg. 1984, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale [Total Recall] The Truman Show, Matrix, Dark City)? The simple truth is that, depending on the potence and benevolence of the hypothetical creator of these scenarios, we cannot be 100% sure... in fact, we cannot even be 1% sure. This makes the arguement for or against a God an exercise in futility... all we can do is gather evidence and come to theory. There is no point in being dogmatic about that theory or trying to convince others of its veracity.
I agree with creationists that the mere existance of all the viruses, diseases, illnesses that befall us don't necessarily prove that there wasn't a designer (although they lend enormous weight to that hypothesis). However, i don't believe the arguement that we ate a fruit and "fell from grace" is adequate or satifactory to explain away the presence of these problems, especially if one makes grandiose claims of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience for ones God. Again the "God" explanation to me contains too many ifs and buts and is surrounded by a plethora of stories and fables about snakes and trees that is just not relevant to my daily understanding of the world, it has nothing to do with my personal experience. Therefore i chose not to believe in the "God " theory, i choose to believe that diseases, illness and syndromes result from either imperfect or mutated reproduction, or macro- and micro-organisms being in competition with each other.
That is all that needs to be proven, going beyond that, for me, is an effort in futility, but i will not argue with a creationist, because their mind is different from mine, the way they see evidence is different, they may have a propensity to believe in a God, just as I have a propensity not to. Once a person is sure, it is unlikely that any amount of "evidence" will pursuade either party to change their view. Even though definately an atheist, i still cannot be dogmatic, or imperious with my beliefs. If the fact that a banana has 5 outer sides and the circle resulting from our index finger and thumb forming a ring has 5 inner sides is enough for some people, fine. If the complexity of the eye or the brain is enough for other people, fine. I'm not against faith or belief, but i am against dogmatism and coersion
The video is a lot of speclation and belief - that's what evolution is. "Could be this, might be that". Oh, all evolution had to do is stick a lense in there. How'd that happen?
This demonstrates a key difference between evolutionists and creationists. I think it is a good thing to speculate, instead of stating categorically and dogmatically that something is true. "Could be this, might be that" is intrinsically better than "the Bible says this so that is true".
It is better to decide what the facts are on evidence, and even when evidence is prsented, to be flexible as to what could have happened. It is harmful to decide what the facts are *before* the evidence is found. Even more harmful to try to manipulate evidence to fit into an ancient book. For many creationists the Bible must be true, whatever the evidence. When new evidence is discovered, it is squeezed to try and fit in with biblical stories. Their beliefs are always so sure and never change... There is a big difference between looking for evidence and formulating a theory based on it, and looking for evidence to try to prove an existing theory.