Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker - 2/5

[deanmullen10]

Brilliant video, but I had to look away for a moment, for some reason I have a mega fear of looking at pictures of insects up close lol I don't know what it is but when that moth picture came up around 1:46 I got the fright of my life haha, but still I intend to see the beauty in nature.

[RampantlyHomosexual]

I would fuck him so hard.

[Melicioel7]

I don't know of monkeys and Shakespeare but if you get manatees you can have your oun Family guy scripts lol

[sonuEEE]

Can some one give me algorithm for random alphabets.

[freesalvation7]

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or pricipalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Colossians 1:16

[elvenator]

@freesalvation7

"You see, only a person who wanted to find the Stone -- find it, but not use it -- would be able to get it, otherwise they'd just see themselves making gold or drinking Elixir of Life. My brain surprises even me, sometimes..." - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, pg 217.

I can quote works of fiction too. What's your point?

[unfad1ng]

@elvenator

perfect answer.

now let me quote the second holy book:

"Forty-two is the number Deep Thougt gave as being the Ultimate Answer.

yes

And the Earth is the computer Deep Thougt designed and built to calculate The Question to the Ultimate Answer, So we are led to believe. And organic life was a part of the computer matrix

if you say so"

The Hitchikers Guide to The Galaxy: The Restuarant at The End of The Universe pg385

look i too can quote work of ficiton

[Theownera]

oh man, richard dawkins was hot back in the day, I mean just look at that guy. I'm a dude and I would have intercourse with him back then.

[laflugantabastardo]

@Theownera

Don't feel bad about it. I'm a dude and I have intercourse with dudes. :V

[xoxILoveCatsxox]

@Theownera He's got a sexy voice, too, and still does. ;D

I'm a girl and I would definitely have done him back then. ;)

[AntiChrista4WPeace]

@xoxILoveCatsxox DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe. Don't go to him if Brian's your flavor.

[xoxILoveCatsxox]

@AntiChrista4WPeace 'Kay?

[JONNOG88]

Richard Dawkins is a legend.

He, Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan (may he RIP) are reviving my interest and fascination with Science.

And enforcing my Rationalism and Secularism.

For those of you who have not read God Delusion yet I strongly reccomend that you do.

[vrghiks]

Sinners are slaves of the devil.Saved sinners are servents of God.

Which one of these are you?

[sprightliful]

I'm neither slave nor servant to anything.

[vrghiks]

Oh yes you are!I believe God's Word,and

God says you are a slave to sin.

[elvenator]

@sprightliful

Except your physiology ;)

[Juel92]

@vrghiks Servants, that's not a particulary flattering or good title to have. As a servant, do you follow your masters every wit and command, if he would ask you to kill would you do it? Atheists, or as you refer to as sinners, are free of the shackles that control you're mind. Slaves to reason if anything, not the devil.

[Bmbillma]

He has a valid point with the whole eye concept except when he says "imagine IF some of those cells secreted a little mucus." That seems like a big if to me.

[Xirbtt]

Life seems like a big "if" yet here we are.

[unfad1ng]

@Eye2EyeIIIV

yay for premaritial sex, secular lifestyle and mans opinion!!!!!!! atheism ftw

[Mr88playmaker]

Dawkins is upset over what his idol, the world's PREMIERE ATHEIST, Anthony Flew publicly admitted about DNA; but Dawkins forgets that he himself stated that DNA can only be explained by intelligent design. The difference is that Dawkins said the code may have been written by evolved aliens whereas Anthony Flew said he was siding with Einstein and calling the creator "God".

Dawkins is angry because he - unlike Flew - is more about 'atheism' than he is about science and the facts

[Velocipablo]

That's not true DNA could be explain without need of a creator. imagine the first DNA, it was produce by quimestry on our Planet, on other planets DNA won`t be the same as in this because the quimestry is diferent, indeed almost everyt biologyst says that the earth biology is just a few more than probably 1% of all kind of life. The diference is based in natural selection first DNA should be able to do things enought good too survive it is called natural selection.

[bassbole]

its amazing how much misinterpretation you fit into that one paragraph

[Juel92]

@Mr88playmaker Einstein was an atheist retard. And how did Anthony Flew become the worlds "Premiere Atheist"?. Darwin was an atheist and he was lived alot earlier than Anthony flew. Dawkins have stated that DNA can only be explained by ID? When? And what did Flew publicly admit about DNA? Please, enligthen me.

[tinygirl505]

O.k.,let's just pick some shakespearian phrase from hamlet ... oooh, I don't know, just any-old line from hamlet...aaah, what's a good one? A good short phrase from hamlet that we can use to try to match in our computer program here...could be any short phrase from hamlet, something that people would distinctly recognize as a line from one of shakespeare's plays...Hmmm, nothing's coming to mind. Oh yeah, wait, I've got it! "Methinks it is like a weasel" That's _perfect_!

[RenegadeMaster07]

it doesn't prove a creator, but man alive! it doesnt not prove evolution lolol.

Richard Dawkins is afraid of God. Where he is real or not he's still afraid of him.

Thats why he spends all his life trying to prove there isn't one. He still hasnt successfully proved it.

He takes great comfort in random chance because he worries about his salvation if God is true. But if random chance is correct he can jsut relax.

Not all people feel this way about God, but some like dawkins do.

[matthewjheaney]

You've got it exactly backwards. Dawkins is making the positive case for evolution. Creationists cannot make a positive case for Zeus, so all they can do is make a negative argument against evolution, hoping no one will notice that this is a false dichotomy

Theists have the burden of proof. If you make a positive existential claim, then you must adduce evidence for that claim.

So theists must prove that theism is true. It is not up to atheists to prove that theism is false.

[RenegadeMaster07]

iv not got anything backwards.

you seem to think there is no proof to creation and will simply disregard everything because you already believe in evolution.

alot of athiests or undecided people i know have no belief in evolution. Load of crap is what they tell me. They still dont believe in God, but they don't believe in evolution thats for sure.

I don't have to ridicule evolution though, it doesnt have enough proof to be fact.

I am right though when i say Dawkins fears God.

[todore00]

fool

[RenegadeMaster07]

thanks for sharing your intellect.

you all seem to have a problem with me saying anything against dawkins, but the guy is afraid of God.. which has nothing to do with the existence of God, only the fear in Dawkins own mind.

Dawkins was asked, how the first cell come in2 existence, and his answer was that a previous evolution created it.

so hold on. somethin "created" it? and he said "not God, a previous evolved being"

So, how did the first cell come about for the previous evolution?

[todore00]

Its laughable to say Dawkins is 'afraid of God' when he openly ridicules all religions.

If you want to put forth a cosmological argument I suggest you pick up the most basic philosophy of religion handbook to discover how it fails completely.

[RenegadeMaster07]

and its daft to say thats laughable.

because the best way to hide your fear of something is to ridicule it. your from the uk so think of all the neds (chavs) that ridicule people on the street. its because they are afraid of people. They worry they won't fit in or their not smart enough and as a result try to make everyone else feel small by comparison.

its like when people say "im not afraid of you" that doesn't mean its true.

and still no proof for a pre-evolution, so no foundation.

[todore00]

Yeah, actually you're probably right.

Dawkins must be afraid of God.

Just like he's afraid of Amon-Re, Osiris, Sebek, Molech, Bilé, Ler, Arianrod, Morrigu, Govannon, Gunfled, Sokk-mimi, Memetona, Dagda, Robigus, Pluto, Ops, Meditrina, Vesta, Tilmun, Ogyrvan, Dea Dia, Ceros, Vaticanus, Edulia, Adeona, Iuno, Lucina, Saturn, Furrina, Vediovis, Consus, Cronos, Enki, Engurra, Dimmer, Mu-ul-lil, Ubargisi, Ubilulu, Gasan lil, U-dimmer-an-kia, Enurestu, U-sab-sib......

Thats only a tiny fraction

[todore00]

How can you be afraid of something you have come as close as you can get to disproving?

To say there was a start to the universe does not invalidate evolution, the most well-proven scientific fact in history.

[RenegadeMaster07]

actually its one of the most faith based scientific theories.

to prove monkeys into man isn't difficult, it takes little imagination. lizards into birds doesn't work, but i dont remember the facts, it was a long complicated talk i attended on that one.

but what evolution is designed to prove is that God didn't create man, man was a result of random chance. how can that stand true if God created the first cell.

and as for all those gods, there are reasons why the God of Isreal is unique.

[todore00]

Your first sentence fails profoundly. I won't bother telling you there exists mountains of evidence, as you will do your very best to avoid it whether it is true or not.

...Your second sentence is simply incoherent...

It doesn't surprise me that you haven't the faintest idea about Darwin's theory; most people who deny evolution cannot even define it, yet alone have tried to entertain it in their puny skulls any longer than the time it takes to say 'I heart jesus'.

Get some self-respect.

[RenegadeMaster07]

i could say the same about you. i mean what do you know about Jesus. What do you know of the bible?

Have you taken longer to look at that than you have to take the time to say "i heart darwin".

The ironic thing is darwin didn't mention much about evolution. He simply talked about it for a bit to justify his own racism. he looked at the different races of the world and tried to justify his own prejudice.

but iv taken along time lookin at evolution and the big bang and long may i continue

[todore00]

I can say confidently that I know more about Christianity, philosophy, and religion in general than you do (in fact I rejected an offer to study theology at Cambridge).

Do not try and pull that card with me.

From your strange conjectures, I can infer that you have no idea about Darwin, or evolution, and probably never will if you blindly accept creationist lies.

(In short, you're an embarrassment to intelligent Christians everywhere :D)

[RenegadeMaster07]

i dont blindy accept anything and if you think that about me then you have assumed that to be the case.

and of course i should "pull that card" because you did the same on me. you have made assumptions about me and i only suggest the same of yourself.

it seems you have already decided that all creationists are misguided and believe lies. so in your eyes i have no credibility so you'll not take me seriously.

but my credibility has nothing to do with the debate or even what the truth is.

[RenegadeMaster07]

it is an attempt to laugh the opponent out of the room. Almost to convince yourself or anyone else he is not worth listening to.

This is regardless of whether he is correct or not. You just don't want him to be.

You seem to think you have so much knowledge on the subject. Yet you tell me quite openly that you "didn't" study at cambridge. you just throw it into the conversation like it matters.

I "didn't" study science at oxford. That doesn't mean i know anything about science.

[RenegadeMaster07]

but i'll use this as an example to explain what my point actually is.

The Jewish leaders heard about Jesus. Met Jesus, and failed to trick Jesus. These people had studied the scriptures their whole life. They knew everything in there. Yet they did not recognise Jesus as the Messiah they had been waiting for. Even though he gave them several signs to show that.

Now you dont need faith to believe that historically happened.

[RenegadeMaster07]

so these leaders knew everything, but they still didn't get it.

So it doesn't impress me if you do in fact have alot of knowledge on theology and science. if you're ignoring the facts, then what good is it all to you?

If there was true proof for evolution i would believe it, but i can't find it. This clip for example, it simply explains why the eye isn't 3 cells flat on your face.

then he says "lets imagination some mucus appeard from these cells and became a lens". why did it?

[todore00]

Ok I'm sorry for attacking your credibility, but I can't understand how a person can shut themselves off from the truth like this. If you haven't found the evidence, then look for it. Or, at least read a book or two. Maybe even acknowledge the opinion of the entire academic community.

[todore00]

I don't deny that Jesus was probably a real guy. Just not the son of God.

[RenegadeMaster07]

I wasn't trying to say if he was real or not. Although there is more evidence for his existence than there is for Ceasar or Napolean, yet he's the only one who is ever doubted.

I was just using that as an example. Whether he was the son of God or not, the evidence that he was the Messiah the jews were looking for was huge. They should have seen that.

And i don't shut myself off from the truth, but instead i am researching both sides of the argument.

[RenegadeMaster07]

because you see if evolution is true and the big bang is true (altho that one is definitely a fairy story. Nothing suddenly exist and explode)

then there is no purpose for our existence at all. And racism is actually alright because then some races are better evolved than others.

And what need is there for a moral code when after we die, its like we never existed.

There was a serial killer who killed several people because he truly believed in evolution. and sadly, he was very logical.

[RenegadeMaster07]

so the thing i don't understand is why someone would insist that everyone believe in evolution.

I evangelise because i want to share this great belief i have, i want people to be saved from sin, and i want to show them there is great meaning to our existence and give them the oppurtunity of eternal life. And church while not important to salvation is a great way to surround yourself with good moral people. and "you are your friends".

[RenegadeMaster07]

So when you weigh that up against what evolutionists offer me.

No purpose. No reason. No life after death. No consequence of life. And justifiable racism.

I then have to question the motives of someone who insists that i believe in evolution because they do.

And usually the conclusion is that they want it to be true. They have convinced themselfs that "man" has discovered the truth so man is in control. These people want justification to do anything in their life without consequence

[RenegadeMaster07]

My motives aren't about convincing the world that i am right or i am wrong.

As cliché as it is, its about sharing the good news lol.

I want people to have purpose and belief and the fellowship of other good people.

So you can understand why I do what i do, as i belief Christ has done for me. However that doesn't mean i'm still not interested in the truth. Far from it. If evolution is not true then I have to know why. And if it is true, its a sad day, but thats pretty important too.

[todore00]

You make your own purpose and reason in life. Love, be happy, care for others, leave your mark upon the world, and cherish the life that you have.

To be honest, I think life after death is not only incoherent, and against all evidence, but is also a horrible proposal - imagine ETERNITY.

Also, you shouldn't believe in something because of its effects and not because its true.

What you're saying is very ironic. I am the one with AAALLLLLL the evidence on MY side.

[todore00]

Knowing that evolution happens does not make people immoral. You are ignorant to suggest otherwise.

Evangelize, by all means, but DO NOT LIE to people.

[todore00]

How am I supposed to engage in rational conversation with a guy who believes the big bang theory and evolution are both 'fairy stories'?!

Evolution does not justify racism.

If you need a cosmic punishment to motivate you to be moral, then you are immoral person.

The structure of society (ratio of believers to nonbelievers) is the same as in prisons, and countries with higher rates of belief have higher rates of homicide, abortion and many other disgraceful and immoral practices.

[todore00]

No, there isn't more evidence for his existence than Napoleon. Why? Because Napoleon existed less than 200 years ago.

Even if we grant you the lie that Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead, that doesn't mean he was the son of God.

[RenegadeMaster07]

well if you don't believe in God you yourself will not believe Jesus was the son of God.

but the jews did and he was everything they were looking for and they didn't see it. Yet they had all the knowledge and evidence for it.

and darwin was a racist and evolution fitted in with his racist views. It allows you to say that you are of a more evolved race than other races.

[RenegadeMaster07]

I am not motivated by cosmic punishment to motivate me to be moral. I was already very moral before I became a christian. I didn't practice sex before marriage because i could see a million reasons why it was a good idea. and the one reason why i should do it is that it was a good way to spend half an hour lol.

i see purity in morality and reason for it.

[RenegadeMaster07]

im not sayin all evolutionists are racists. but its because most don't follow it through to conclusion.

If i am to conclude my life is has no purpose and i am just to die as if id never existed. Then why should i do anything for a reason if there is no reason.

Whats the different between good and bad and right and wrong when there are no consequences.

[RenegadeMaster07]

and i don't believe in christianity because of its effects. I believe it because i have found it to be true and i continue to test it as i do evolution.

I was simply stating what my faith offers and what evolutionists offer to show the motives behind it. Does it not make sense for people who want to live their own way to believe there is no God. These very people who take the view of "bad things are wrong" unless they are the one doing them? double standards.

[RenegadeMaster07]

my motives are clearly to (oh no! im gonna say the cliche again) spread the good news and offer people what I have found with faith in Jesus.

So my motives are clear, its to share that.

With evolutionists its more about proving themself right, and there are no consequences for their life.

--and to fully understand what i mean it is best to assume both sides are wrong, because im talkin purely about motives.

[todore00]

'Evolutionists' (everyone except ignorant creationists) do not have any agenda, because evolution is a scientific fact. You don't go around calling people 'ROUND EARTHERS'.

Go and read at least an article written by a decent scientist on evolution. PLEASE.

[todore00]

How can you test something which is completely lacking in testable features?

YOU DON'T TEST EVOLUTION, SCIENTISTS DO, and they have found CONCLUSIVE amounts of proof for its veracity.

'Evolutionism' is not a 'faith'!!?! You can understand science and be a Christian!! OMG WHY AM I STILL SPEAKING TO YOU

[RenegadeMaster07]

i have read such articles and i will continue to do so. but parts of it are on faith.

For example, you accept on faith Lizards turned into birds, and then you fabricate a scenario where it is possible. However with the complexity of feathers and radical difference in scales, its not plausible.

saying scientists test it doesn't mean anything. Most "facts" are often followed by the phrase "a consensus of scientists believe", not ALL scientists

ur still talkin to me yes, what is ur motive?

[jmckaskle]

No one says birds evolves from lizards. Birds evolved from theropods. The fossil record shows a gradual evolution of feather structures with various intermediate forms up to modern birds. That's as true as claiming taking showers gets you wet. You may now stick your fingers back in yours and run along to your little cave so the rest of humanity can progress.

[RenegadeMaster07]

now this i really don't understand. you seem to think that because i deny evolution (at least in the form it is presented, speciation i'm cool with) that i also deny advancements in technology.

See when God banished Adam and Eve from Eden, they had to labour for their survival.

Now it does not say they were forced to use the most difficult method possibly. Technology has advanced to make our labour easier, but we still have to labour.

[RenegadeMaster07]

so you can go live in a cave if you want to, i'll stay here with my dual monitors and 5.1 surround sound with my microwaved curry and my ice cream from my frost free fridge freezer combination and turn the heating up just an extra degree on the thermostat just because i can.

Believing in creation, and believing in God doesn't mean you don't believe in technology. I just don't agree with the theory of evolution and the big bang. From long before i was a christian, they didnt make sense.

[jmckaskle]

For fucks sake. There was no Adam and Eve, no garden of Eden, no land of Nod, no Noah and an Ark, no Unicorns and race of giants, and the earth is not flat. Your view of the world is based on the imaginations of Bronze Ag goat herders. Stick your fingers back in your

ears and run along to your little cave so the rest of us can progress.

[RenegadeMaster07]

mate im not telling you its true or anything. obviously i do believe it is.

the point i was making is that from my perspective. Adam and Eve had to labour. WE have to labour. so WE ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY (TEK-NAW-LAW-JAY) so it is easier.

so to you i say TAKE YOUR FINGERS OUT OF YOUR EARS AND REALISE WE DONT LIVE IN CAVES AND ARE FOR (not against) ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY.

we are not for evolution and big bang theory.

no fingers in my ears, bt u hav, cos i was clear enough the 1st time

[jmckaskle]

The story of Adam and Eve was invented. It is in no way whatsoever a true story. We don't work because a snake told some chick to eat a fruit. If eveyone believed the bible was the ultimate truth, we would all be herding goats in a desert. We don't believe nonsense like the stories in Genesis so we seek out the reasons why. You don't believe in the Big Bang theory, but do yo believe in solid state electronics? The knowledge that produces computers and microwave ovens predicts the big bang.

[jmckaskle]

You aren't understanding. The knowledge that brings us technology brings us understanding of the world. The knowledge that brings us computers brings us understanding of the world and beyond. We gave advancing our technology for hundreds of thousands of years. The story of Adam and Eve is a myth and had no bearing on reality. Step away from the Internet. It's Devil Magic!

[RenegadeMaster07]

its not a myth but i'm not going to convince you otherwise so lets stay on topic.

what was before the big bang?

a popular theory is that there was another universe before and it all pulled togheter and caused the big bang. it is thought to have always happened.

however, how can all the matter exist in the first place. That's something no one will ever answer with science.

[RenegadeMaster07]

to say God created may sound like an easy story to you.

however, it is a real theory. it only requires the existence of God.

This is the only thing we need ever debate. You see all else makes sense after that.

as i said some say the universe has always been there. Yet they will also say if God exists, he COULDNT have always been there. but at the same time, you don't expect God to have a life expectancy either.

So its these concepts that make it such a difficult topic.

[jmckaskle]

To say "God dunnit," answers nothing and stops knowledge. Every time there is a question that hasn't yet Been answered with science, believers look to "God" and stop thinking about. Eventually science answers the question and it never involves "God." "God" is not a valid answer and is infact a non-answer grounded I'm ignorance. .

[jmckaskle]

Any useful description of matter and the origins of the universe is necessarily a scientific answer begins that answer accurately describes what is asked, is able to make predictions and opens other avenues of research. Saying "God dunnit," is of know use at all.

[todore00]

'darwin was a racist'

Substantiate this claim s'il vouz plait

[intelligentfalling]

How hypocritical. Darwin was much less racist than the christian south of america that wanted to keep slaves because the god of the bible said they could have them. By contrast Darwin was an abolitionist. Also evolution cannot make objective value judgements. No race is "more evolved" than any other because we have all been evolving for the same basic amount of time. Evolution cant make value judgement because any benificial trait will become detremental in a different evironment and viceversa.

[RenegadeMaster07]

intelligentfalling, i dont know if ur comment was to me, i'll assume so.

whether or not the christian south of america was racist is completely irrelevant.

regardless of how racist he is by comparison, it does not make Darwin any less racist than he actually is.

its like everytime someone does something to you they say "calm down, its not like iv murdered you" cos thats irrelevant to what they actually did.

It wud b hypocritical if i was racist. even so, darwin wud still b the same.

[intelligentfalling]

You missed the point. Nonracist disposition was highly rare back then and for the time, Darwin was actually quite progressive, being an abolishonist and all. But please provide a quote or two to prove the point that Darwin was a racist. I have so far only been able to find desperate quotemines. Thanks.

[RenegadeMaster07]

i'm not even dead set on the idea that he was a racist. but it was brought up in the conversation there so i'm just saying how the racism of some christians is irrelevant to whether or not darwin was racist.

them being racist doesn't prove that he wasn't.

i'm not goin to defend those christians liek you all defend darwins character, because character has nothing to do with the message they tell.

it does not make either party's point less factual.

[intelligentfalling]

That was kinda my point. I was trying to get them to think and realize that the character of a person has nothing to do with the proposal of said person by putting it in a context that forced them to accept that there were racists on their side.

Also I only defend Darwins character against inaccurate attacks. I would do the same with Jesus or anyone else. I defend proposals based on validity, and if I had good evidence he was a racist I would be defending the person saying he was.

[RenegadeMaster07]

the reason racism comes up so much is simply because of the time darwin conducted his studies, and because evolution fits racism very well.

As the idea of racism is that your race is somehow superior to others.

So evolution is idea to support this as it allows you to say that science justifies that opinion.

Biblically all races are the same. However some are confused and say that black skin comes from Ham's cursed descendants. Yet that has nothing to do with skin colour.

[intelligentfalling]

No actually you have it completely backwards, The idea of superiority is subjective. There is nothing in nature that determines objective superiority because any trait that is benificial in one environment is detramental in a different one, and vice versa. There can be no "superiority" with evolution. Its the exact opposite in the bible where the jews are the superior or "gods chosen" race and everyone else is slave chattle. You'd have to be very confused to think evolution is racist.

[RenegadeMaster07]

That actually just proves that nothing is perfect in evolution, but it still says that some things are more advanced than others.

as with the jew's, they misunderstood what it meant to be "chosen people".

the question is, "chosen" for what? They were chosen to tell the world of the coming Messiah, and they failed specacularly as they believed it gave them immunity and guaranteed them salvation

Which is why i believe they tried to kill Jesus after simple discussions. he proved them wrong

[intelligentfalling]

1."nothing is perfect in evolution"

Exactly!

2.Yeah I supposed "advanced" works. This certainly does not apply to skin color because each pigment has an ideal environment. But again "advanced" doesnt mean "better" because while mudskippers have very primitive features they managed to survive to the present while Tyrannosaurus Rex, being highly "advanced" did not. If history were repeated with a few differences the opposite might be true.

[intelligentfalling]

Interesting points on your side. What do you make of the slavery issue, though? was that a part of the mistaken beliefs they had, do you think?

[RenegadeMaster07]

what do mean when you say the slavery issue. What are you referring to exactly, Egypts slavery of the Jews?

[intelligentfalling]

I mean the verses condoning slavery, telling you who the jews could and could not enslave, and the old "if you strike a slave and he dies that day you pay money for it but if he survives the day and dies later you owe nothing" thing?

[todore00]

As for you last sentence about the god of isreal being 'unique', of course I will accept that this god is unique, but so is every other god invented by man because they are all different.

The main reasons you believe in that particular god is because you have most likely been born or raised in to that tradition. Its odd how specific gods like to target very clearly defined geographical areas, isn't it?

[Inigobalboa]

he tried 26 3 1941, his own date of birth

[camposgeoff]

About 3:35 in, the professor tries to open a bank vault by chance to demonstrate how futile it is. It would have been a top jape if someone fixed it so that it opened.

[DasHortH]

I agree with the previous poster, but I think that 'don't fix the window if it isn't broken' is far shorter and more elegant.

[jhbbunch]

Just to cut the retards off at the pass, no this does not prove that there is a designer because someone wrote the program, it indicates that you need a programmer to SIMULATE natural phenomena on a computer built by men, and that is all.

Rule of thumb: Don't draw a bow further back than the arrow is long.