View allAll Photos Tagged intelligentdesign,
Pronghorn. The pronghorn is a unique North American mammal. Its Latin name, Antilocapra americana, means "American goat-antelope," but it is not a member of the goat or the antelope family and it is not related to the antelopes found in Africa. The pronghorn is the only surviving member of the Antilocapridae family. (nhpbs.org)
I guess the idea is to mark a pedestrian crosswalk - so a driver would know the EXACT reason for that bump in the road (I mean hump in the road -jeez, it's even got it's very own sign and I still mis-labeled it).
Afterlife wings are so 20th century.
Tualatin Fred Meyer, 11:25 PM.
Media:
* Wikipedia: Kadanuumuu
* Wikipedia: Louis C.K.
But since his was the only entry, he won first place.
We're Here! : Flying Spaghetti Monster
Running out of ideas for your 365 project? Join We're Here!
Strobist: AB1600 with gridded 60X30 softbox camera right. AB800 with Softlighter II camera left. AB800 with gridded HOBD-W overhead. AB800 with gridded 7 inch reflector camera right. Triggered by Cybersync.
This is another one from my Natural Texture collection. This old palm leaf is an incredible example of Intelligent Design.
Two processes were at work in this photo: one natural, one intentional. Why do we know intuitively which is which? The background pattern is regular and geometric; that's not enough to discriminate causes. The tire tread we recognize as coming from a bicycle tire (dirt bike or mountain bike). It, too, produced a repeating pattern. Some naturally-caused patterns can be just as regular.
We might quibble over whether the tire tread represents "intelligent" design but the difference is in the intent: the foresight a cycle maker had to produce a vehicle capable of driving out on soft dirt, and the intention of a driver to take it out on this playa. That's the only distinguishing factor between the two forms of causation. One (the tire track) required a mind; the other (the mud cracks) did not. Whether a pattern is ethical or has artistic merit are separate questions. We all make these inferences to natural and intelligent causes every day. Some are intuitive; some require more investigation: e.g. mud cracks can resemble pottery.
Are we, as Professor Richard Lewontin suggests, forced by an a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, or can we accept that some things are the result of intelligent design?
Let the winds blow. Let the seeds of hope spread far and wide.
A dandelion seed puff. Geometry in nature; perfection and gracefulness.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafarianism. Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarianism) is a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. ...
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. In the letter, Henderson demanded equal time in science classrooms for "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism", alongside intelligent design and evolution. After Henderson published the letter on his website, the Flying Spaghetti Monster rapidly became an Internet phenomenon and a symbol of opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. (From Wikipedia on 2.1.2018)
For more photos about Munich or Bavaria, see my Munich album.
Just the fact that the earth is flat, dos not mean it has to stay flat.
We're here visiting Flat Earthers
©Retrofuturs, a graphic company
A3 Poster
Retrofuturs, a graphic company
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins.
The most compelling argument against intelligent design is this: if the natural world is the work of a divine creator, wouldn't he have left a few tools lying around like every other bloke that does DIY?
Clear glass ambrotype, MPP 5"x4" with Schneider 150mm lens, 20 sec @ f/5.6.
Original posted on 03/18/2009
©Retrofuturs, a graphic company
See also Clint and the creationists
www.flickr.com/photos/hulk4598/3308314567/
And Darwin
www.flickr.com/photos/hulk4598/3042283704/
`
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins.
Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth. Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgments. The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.
Such beliefs include Young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the earth is thousands rather than billions of years old. They typically believe the days in Genesis Chapter 1 are 24 hours in length, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict the Genesis account, but reject evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth. Alternately, there are other religious people who support creation, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of Genesis.
When mainstream scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research, its underlying scientific theories, and/or its methodology. For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.
Read more
Did you ever stop to think what controls the universe? Did you know there is more water on earth than land? How is the ocean able to stay in its rightful place without flooding the earth? How was water created and from what source? What would be its purpose? We know the moon's gravity controls the tides of the ocean but what force causes the moon to gravitate and control the tides of the ocean and why? For what purpose? Just because? By chance? Why would chance care? How did it come to exist? Who or what was the earth and heavens made for and why?
What controls the laws of gravity? The scientists say some technical theories of this and that and its cause by some physical source and number or chance but how did it come to exist and where? why? Can scientists explain that? When you look at earth and all its creatures, how were they able to come into existence and why? Why are they there? Why are there so many different species? Why are we here? Are we here just by chance or are we here for a reason to be in a relationship with an all powerful highly intelligent spiritual being who created all things for him and by him for his pleasure and glory and which longs to have an intimate and personal relationship with his children.
How were the planets, stars and galaxies in the heavens formed? How did the heavens come to exist? Did something by chance just happen and it came to be? But why? From what matter did it come to exist? What was its purpose to come into existence? Can people see that things like this just don't happen by chance? Why can't people believe that there is a living and powerful spiritual God and that He is the beginning and the end, and a loving, forgiving and longing to have a personal relationship with his children whom he created.
What controls the movement and orbit of the earth and the heavens? Why does the sun rise and set on earth and what would be its purpose? Why is there light? Why is there oxygen? What would be its purpose? What would be the purpose of light? Did light come to be by chance? Did chance create human beings? And if so, why? Does chance see, feel, hear, create, love? How did chance come to exist and why would it care?
When you see the earth God created and its beauty of colors, trees, sky, vegetation, mountains, seas, rivers, lakes, his creatures, and people, isn't that enough to see that it was put there for a reason? That there is a God who created all things by his Word and hand. A God who wants us to enjoy the beauty of his creations whom he loves. If all this was by chance then why? How did chance come to exist? Why would it care? What would be the purpose of chance?
Why do we have emotion? How is it that we are able to feel, think, love and reproduce? Does chance care? Why would it? What would be its purpose of life? Do you think we actually come from monkeys? And if we did, why did we evolve to human beings? Do you think life started by chance by evolving from cells, fish, monkeys, etc. How did life come to exist and why? That is a question scientists cannot answer because they don't know the answer and would rather choose to make up their own ideas and theories of how life and creation came into existence denying there is an all powerful God who created all things in the heavens and the earth and that he is sitting on his throne above watching us and heartbroken that some of his children choose to deny who he really truly is.
How great is God---beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out.
Job 36:26
He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.
After that comes the sound of his roar; he thunders with his majestic voice. When his voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding.
He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.'
So that all men he has made may know his work, he stops every man from his labor...
The breath of God produces ice, and broad waters become frozen.
He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.
At his direction they swirl around over the face of the whole earth to do whatever he commands them.
He brings the clouds to punish men, or to water his earth and show his love.
Job 37:3-13
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone---while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, "This is far you may come and no farther; here is where you proud waves halt'?
Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?...
Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
"What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?...
What is the way to the place where the lighting is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one it it, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass?
Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice? Who give birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deeps is frozen?...
Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth?
"Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water?
Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, 'Here we are'?
Who endowed the heart with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind?
Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together?....
Job 38:4-38
For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods.
In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him.
The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land...Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...
Psalm 95:3,4,5,8
Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth.
Sing to the Lord, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day...For all the gods of the nations are all idols, but the Lord made the heavens.
Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and glory are in his sanctuary.
Psalm 96:1-6
...
Please feel free to reply or comment on the above message. God Bless.
These four pictures are the wonderful images of frost and nature that I found when I took my dog out first thing this morning. Much to my dog's chagrin, I ran back for my camera before she got to do her desperate ritual. She survived but the frost didn't.
When I came back less than 10 minutes later, every bit was melted by the warming sun. She will never know the sacrifice she made to art in her pain.
Must see large.
How does one know this is intentionally designed and not natural? It's made of exactly the same rock as the sandstone above and below. The mark of intelligent design is not the material, but how it is arranged.
One might say it is "possible" these stones could have arranged themselves naturally (i.e., by chance or natural law), but we all know intuitively from our experience with building things that someone did this on purpose.
So while we can't say this structure is "proof" of intelligent design, in the absence of having watched the stones get arranged this way, we can say that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for it.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky". And there was evening, and there was morning---the second day.
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:1-10
(Picture of earth: credit given to network.earthday.net)
Which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?
You may think this is a stupid question -
Because ...
Atheism is claimed by atheists and the popular media as the rational, scientific viewpoint. While Christianity is portrayed as an irrational, outdated, backward enemy of science.
Many of us have been conditioned to believe this.
But is what they say actually true?
The answer may surprise you.
What does science itself have to say?
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics says - there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite - that matter/energy created itself, from nothing, by natural processes.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the First Law.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 1
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that both the energy potential and order of the universe is decreasing from an initial peak.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite - that energy potential naturally increased of its own accord to a peak, followed by a subsequent, continuing development of order.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Second Law.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 2
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
3. Law of Cause and Effect says – every natural effect/event has a cause.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists refuse to accept this law, and claim the opposite – a natural, first cause of the universe that was uncaused.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Law of Cause and Effect.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 3
Atheism 0
__________________________________________
4. The Law of Cause and Effect also says – that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The cause must always be adequate to produce the effect.
Christians fully accept this aspect of the law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite – they propose that the universe originated from an uncaused, natural, first cause, which would obviously be inadequate to produce the effect.
i.e. they propose a natural cause of the universe [such as a (Big Bang) explosion or quantum effects] which would be grossly inferior to the totality of all the properties/qualities that exist in the universe.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject this aspect of the Law of Cause and Effect.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 4
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
5. The Law of Biogenesis says – only life begets life, it cannot arise by purely natural processes from sterile matter.
Christians fully accept this well-established law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the exact opposite – they claim that life on Earth, and possibly, even on other planets, did arise by natural processes from sterile matter.
The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
Regardless of the facts, atheists stubbornly refuse to accept the well established, Law of Biogenesis and, quite perversely, have invented their own (unscientific) law which they call ‘abiogenesis’ to replace it.
Abiogenesis (which has no evidence to support it) says the complete opposite of the Law of Biogenesis. It says that matter/energy is inherently predisposed to create life of its own volition when environmental conditions are conducive.
Unsurprisingly, atheists cannot explain where this alleged predisposition of matter to produce life comes from? Ironically, this predisposition for life is fatal to the atheist idea of a purposeless universe? A classic, catch 22 situation.
Therefore, with regard to the origin of life, atheists reject the Law of Biogenesis
_________________________________________
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 5/5
Atheism 0/5
_________________________________________
So, which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?
Christianity fully accepts all natural laws, without reservation.
Atheism disregards or rejects any natural laws (or evidence) that contradict the atheist belief in naturalism.
Atheist (pagan-revivalist) naturalism credits natural entities with god-like, non-contingent, autonomous powers, which (according to science) they clearly don't possess.
This means ....
Christianity is more scientific than atheism.
_________________________________________
Conclusion ...
Christianity is compatible with science.
Atheism is an irrational, outdated, backward, enemy of science.
_________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.
The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
The most compelling argument against intelligent design is this: if the natural world is the work of a divine creator, wouldn't he have left a few tools lying around like every other bloke that does DIY?
Clear glass ambrotype, MPP 5"x4" with Schneider 150mm lens, 20 sec @ f/5.6.
Designed or not designed?
That is the only question that the theory of intelligent design seeks to answer. As ugly as this is, we know it was designed. Rusty cars do not stand up on end naturally.
Other follow-up questions, though interesting, are irrelevant to intelligent design theory.
1. Who designed it?
2. Is it a good design?
3. What purpose does it serve?
4. Why did the designer make it?
Apparently this is some weird person's idea of art or self-expression. It's located in Slab City, a counter-cultural community southeast of the Salton Sea. Their "city" of strange loners is full of ugly junk art – all of it "intelligently designed" as opposed to produced by natural law and chance. Sometimes it's hard to tell.
Darwinism cannot explain how how the system designed to control blood pressure evolved. Without such a system, the animal would suffer a fatal haemorrhage if it lowered it's head to drink. That complex system had to have been in place before the supposed evolution of the long neck, but what use is it to a creature with a short neck, and why would it have been selected as favourable?
Poster A0 50X70cm
if you are interested by my posters, you can order !!
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.
The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.
I am not convinced by the Intelligent Design theory or any other forms of Creationism. I find scientific evidences are supporting Darwin’s evolution and this is the answer to the question about biological history on earth.
However I did suspect there is some intelligent design in scenic places where we can see some sort of beautiful arrangement with the trees, stones and water? :o)
Are the stones at Lake Minnewanka also results of an intelligent design and arrangements?
This is the B&W shot at Lake Minnewanka during my Canadian Rockies trip.
Happy Wednesday!
When a mosquito is slapped, what happens? Obviously its shape is drastically altered and it dies. But what makes it die? All the thousands of sophisticated chemicals are still there, relatively unaltered. Many of the cellular components, including the all-important DNA, are still intact in much of the organism. So what is the problem?
Prior to the impact, the mosquito was a highly organized system with much inherent information. But when hit, it became disordered, causing critical information in the design of the body to be lost. There arose a confusion in the finely tuned co-ordination of chemistry (including the chemicals involved in its overall structure) which culminated in an overall break-down, resulting in death.
For another example, let's say you were to take 100 million bacteria and concentrate them in the bottom of a test tube. Now if you were to physically lyse (break open) the membrane of each of the cells, their insides would spill out, forming a concentrated mixture of incredibly complex 'life-giving' chemicals. Yet, even though all the right 'stuff' for life is there, not even one of those millions of tiny, single-celled organisms would come back to life, nor would any new creatures arise.
If the already complex chemistry of minuscule bacteria cannot reorganize itself back into a living cell, even when concentrated in the test-tube environment, then how is it that life supposedly evolved in the first place, from basically uncomplicated chemicals in conditions far less appropriate than this hypothetical situation? It could not have happened!
As with the mosquito, in order for life to exist the chemistry must be specifically organized and controlled in space as well as in time. For a cell to live, it must be surrounded by a sophisticated membrane that allows only certain chemicals in and out, according to when they are needed, not just at any time. Inside a cell, the proportions of an element or compound must be just right, otherwise the whole system may be thrown off balance and the organism may die. Furthermore, the entire living mechanism must be controlled by the fantastically complex genetic structure of DNA.
All this means that, in order for chemistry to have come together to make a living entity in the first place, the individual atoms must have been purposefully and quickly organized by a Creator having the knowledge and power to do such a thing. It could not possibly happen on its own.