I came across a documentary on youtube. It is 1.5 hours long and for the first 1hr 20mins or so it proves,without doubt,that there has to be a designer of the universe. But it doesnt do this in any other way but giving facts figures and evidence from the scientific world.it references physics,quantum theory,mathematics,biology,touches on evolution and dna,it is utterly fascinating.there is so much to learn from the scientific aspect of intelligent design from this doc.lots of scientists get interviewed saying it is mathematically impossible that there wasnt a creator of some kind.it mentions nothing of religion until a few minutes towards the end when it shows some scientific aspects of the quran and clips of scientists saying how they are unable to refute the koran.although the person who made the doc is muslim,this is not a biased video in the slightest because there is no mention of religion until the end plus it is pure science throughout and as some would say you cant argue with science and facts right?! there is so much in this documentary regarding scientific formulae,fibonnaci sequence many many more things that id love to hear responses and opinions from any scientists on this forum.particularly atheists.the world has waited so long to have actual hard scientific evidence to prove or disprove god and the information in this documentary is groundbreaking and since atheists will only accept science as proof of god,it is there for everyone to see.it has to be watched from beginning to end because there is so much information to take in and a lot of it is advanced maths and physics.it is fascinating please watch.its youtube and its called the signs of gods existence.the picture that you see when it comes up on youtube is a head with a blue brain.cant wait to hear what others make of it.
admins: please please dont throw out this post,please watch the doc if you feel the need to before posting my thread.the doc goes hand in hand with islam there is nothing that contradicts islam in it,it was made by a muslim anyway.and mentions bits about koran at the end and plays a couple of surah recitations.please allow this thread! It would make an excellent dawah tool :-) Jazakallahkhair
Exactly! Very nicely put. Fairly comprehensive coverage and well presented.
But it is rather long....... it talks about mind and material, the cause (agent), about life (creation), and evolution. I'm sure I have missed something out and in all, it 'scientifically' explains its stance/ findings.
Exactly! Very nicely put. Fairly comprehensive coverage and well presented.
But it is rather long....... it talks about mind and material, the cause (agent), about life (creation), and evolution. I'm sure I have missed something out and in all, it 'scientifically' explains its stance/ findings.
Thanks for the share.
Yes it is long....but I quite liked that personally.there was just SO much information to absorb. Thanks for taking the time to watch.now I wait to hear from others particularly anyone knowledgeable enough who can refute any of the scientific information shown because I do want to be fairminded and hear a scientific critique of it,if that's even possible,since science speaks for itself!!.
Salam...it says on your occupation 'scientist'. I don't want to put you on the spot here,but as I'm not a scientist myself and educated to honours degree in languages (therefore quite far removed from that discipline) Could you maybe comment on the documentary? Is the information in it fair and balanced? Do you see any contradictions at all? Jazakallahkhair.
the person who made the doc is muslim,this is not a biased video in the slightest because there is no mention of religion until the end plus it is pure science throughout and as some would say you cant argue with science and facts right?! there is so much in this documentary regarding scientific formulae,fibonnaci sequence
With respect, unfortunately I have to disagree. I can understand why you might like it. However, it seriously misrepresents both science and individual scientists throughout. I'll give an example:
Many of the issues in the video have been the subject of threads before. But one I haven’t seen, and which you mention specifically, is Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Mean.
This sounds impressive as described in the video. How could so much of Nature be built around the same mathematical sequences, if not by Intelligent Design?
What the video entirely fails to mention is that this mathematical configuration is important because it confers direct a evolutionary benefit. For instance, it helps the leaves on a plant to maximise sunlight for photosynthesis. Elsewhere it optimises the number of seeds on a circular seed head.
In other words, this isn’t some kind of arbitrary, magic number. Instead it leads to the single most efficient structures for Nature to use. It therefore makes sense as a consequence of natural selection, in the same way as any other advantage is selected over time.
If they had included that infomation but argued against it, then fair enough. But to fail even to mention this aspect of the story is not acceptable in a video production that purports to be scientific or in any way objective.
In other words, this isn’t some kind of arbitrary, magic number. Instead it leads to the single most efficient structures for Nature to use. It therefore makes sense as a consequence of natural selection, in the same way as any other advantage is selected over time
I think it did stress the impossibility to have things so fine tuned to the 120th decimal places or whatever and to achieve that by chance from what would be a 'random' universe from a 'scientific' point of view. There there must be an 'intelligent designer'
On another note the idea of 'natural selection' is also debated out as being false.
I think it did stress the impossibility to have things so fine tuned to the 120th decimal places or whatever and to achieve that by chance from what would be a 'random' universe from a 'scientific' point of view. There there must be an 'intelligent designer'
I'm not sure whether you can really measure the position of a plant leaf so exactly. In any case, in some species the figure is an average, not exact in every leaf. And there are a minority of plants that don't show a Fibonacci pattern at all. The case is not so simple or clear cut.
From a TOE viewpoint, there is a logical reason for plants to adopt these particular patterns. In order to be objective the video must at least discuss the evolutionary benefit that this arrangement confers. Without it, the video is being at best disingenuous (and that's being kind).
i was in tears listening to this - I mean, atheists need faith after watching the following, even if it is without any logic.
Assalamu alaikum, that was a fabulous video. I loved how he put probability of forming a single 150 amino acid as so minutely small as to be an impossibility. This is assuming that the amino acids themselves had spontaneously appeared in such an environment for them to coalesce into a functional protein. A single protein in and of itself is practically worthless without other biochemicals and cellular structures in order to convey a function.
Originally Posted by Scimitar
i was in tears listening to this - I mean, atheists need faith after watching the following, even if it is without any logic.
Assalamu alaikum, that was a fabulous video. I loved how he put probability of forming a single 150 amino acid as so minutely small as to be an impossibility. This is assuming that the amino acids themselves had spontaneously appeared in such an environment for them to coalesce into a functional protein. A single protein in and of itself is practically worthless without other biochemicals and cellular structures in order to convey a function.
....and I on the fine tuning of gravity'(?) to the accuracy of having an archer calculating how to hit a target measuring 1cm square placed at 15 billion light years away... without such accuracy the world would cease to exist!
Salam...it says on your occupation 'scientist'. I don't want to put you on the spot here,but as I'm not a scientist myself and educated to honours degree in languages (therefore quite far removed from that discipline) Could you maybe comment on the documentary? Is the information in it fair and balanced? Do you see any contradictions at all? Jazakallahkhair.
Assalamu alaikum, I watched a portion of the video, but not all of it yet as it is quite long.
....and I on the fine tuning of gravity'(?) to the accuracy of having an archer calculating how to hit a target measuring 1cm square placed at 15 billion light years away... without such accuracy the world would cease to exist!
Assalamu alaikum, can you clarify what you are trying to say here? I think I missed your point.
I'm not sure whether you can really measure the position of a plant leaf so exactly. In any case, in some species the figure is an average, not exact in every leaf. And there are a minority of plants that don't show a Fibonacci pattern at all. The case is not so simple or clear cut.
From a TOE viewpoint, there is a logical reason for plants to adopt these particular patterns. In order to be objective the video must at least discuss the evolutionary benefit that this arrangement confers. Without it, the video is being at best disingenuous (and that's being kind).
I loved how he put probability of forming a single 150 amino acid as so minutely small as to be an impossibility.
There was another comment relating to the probability of the dispersement of matter (if I am not mistaken) following the Big Bang that had the gravity field changed even in the slightest degree(?) the universe would have formed differently. The accuracy required to 'tune' the gravitational field is equivalent to the analogy of the archer.
But then again, I am trying to understand all the scientific explanations from my layman's understanding..
It says in the article, yes and no (on the randomness of evolution) and it states that only the first step is random, the mutations and chance events. The second part is the natural selection.
On the first point, on the mutations and chance events. It was already stated the probability of creating protein(?) was nearly impossible and that is relatively simple stuff compared to other building blocks. How would the probability stack against everything being created by chance? Let alone for natural selection to take place after.
The video also talks about the need of an 'agent' to make things happen like the example that was cited, doing sums does not produce money. i.e, to build things, it needs to follow the laws of physics, we need the building material. Even then it would not come into being without the 'maker' making it.
On another note, the fact that it is not random surely paves the way into the belief of a 'grand design' and an intelligent source, especially if the 'golden ratio' etc shows a common denominator for all created stuff that governs the laws of creation. Not randomness of chance occurrence.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
greenhill liked this post
Exactly! Very nicely put. Fairly comprehensive coverage and well presented.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks