Inteligent design is back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj8iXiVDT8
Hi

Above na interesting vídeo where scientists explain why there might be a god after all.

 

Images, links, quotations, etc., should be used to support a member's opinion, not to replace it.
Rule 11, rules and guidelines for this forum.

 

The OP stated an opinion. The OP indicated that the video is "interesting". Because the term "interesting" is subjective, then it can only be the opinion of the OP .... unless others would chime in with other comments about the video. I also found it "interesting".

 

While the interestingness of a particular video can certainly be an opinion, I would still think the OP has some opinion about the actual content. If he wished to have a discussion about him liking the video without discussing the content of the video, then he has provided all the information, but posted in the wrong subforum.

That being said, this can be thought of as a guideline too, which means that, arguing your point, he might not strictly have broken a rule, but his post is still an example of the unwanted behaviour that the rule attempts to address.

 

Then based on your analysis, my having stated that in my opinion the video was interesting, would also be some of that unwanted behavior that the rule attempts to address. Well. perhaps, however, your behavior of attacking the messenger(s) regarding their interest in the content of that video is a behavior that is not condoned by the TOS... attacking the messenger as opposed to the message.

Now what I found interesting about the video, is the simple fact that it showed notable scientists and philosophers of science placing the theory of the origin of life in the spotlight of scrutiny by other scientists and the public as well. Also is the intense amount of information regarding evolution and how changes are made at the cellular level and how slight changes can render the organism incapable of functioning (and potentially killing the organism) in the manner in which it was already functioning. Though the ending of the video did not reach any substantive conclusions, it is evident that there are scientists who are in opposition to the theories set out by Darwin.

 

To some extent, but it is also there to encourage the OP to include something more in the thread, perchance an argument.

 

Well, it is evident now that you truly don't want to discuss the content of the video, but would rather continue with an off topic discussion. What say you start over with some comments on the content of the video?

 

Oh. It left?

 

Well, I haven't watched it, which is kind of the reason why I want the OP to specify what he wants to discuss and how the video ties into that. There are many subjects which do not interest me particularly, many classes of argument that would not convince (or even interest) me even if it did touch upon a subject that interests me, and many videos that don't tell me anything I don't already know regardless of the argument in question. I'm not going to spend an hour watching a film that may or may not give me something useful (especially since I've watched things before which, judging from your post and the op, I believe are similar enough). I'm willing to change that assessment, given the information the absence of which I was complaining about in my first post.

That being said, I don't have much to add on the video unless convinced to watch it (I didn't even intend for this line of argument to extend as far as to your first post) and will stop replying unless further questions or objections are raised to my statements.

 

Well, I will say that you did a good job explaining your actions, and based upon the content of your explanation, I will not even attempt to convince you to do something that is apparently "similar enough" to something you might have seen or read before. Have a Merry Christmas. BTW: keep in mind the holiday, as the OP might be enjoying the festivities with his/her family and might not get back on the forum for a day or so.

 

Very interesting documentary. It seems to me that natural selection is a very viable process AFTER initial biological generation. As stated in the film, a spontaenous combuston of chemicals in a primordial pond could possibly generate; but evolution henceforth would require the unspontaenously generated dna coded sequence.

Seems to me that both theories aren't mutually exclusive. Intelligent design (coded dna)is needed for natural selection to occur.

 

Rule 11 thread closure

Shangrila
Moderator