@cyberflo999 we’ll … @cyberflo999 we’ll first of all i don’t believe in religion… and second i really won’t come on here like i have all the answers or like I know alot of scientific phenomena [because i don't]…as we progess through life, over the years to come better technology will come up and maybe we’ll REALLY understand where we came from…but besides that i think the main goal of science is just that..trying to search for the void thats missing…But good statements you make
@Eastleigh6 (4- … @Eastleigh6 (4- and last…) This, they call evolution, not intelligent design. For unlike you, they say “here’s what we know; here’s how the world works, how we understand it to work so far from our experiment. That’s it.”.
They don’t – can’t – acknowlodge God’s imprint on it because things can be explained without the concept of God.
The truth religion claims are not to be questionned. That’s an unfortunate way of thinking.
@Eastleigh6 (3-) … @Eastleigh6 (3-) Those amazing things are called cellular automata.
Then, biologist explained why it seems to work so well at our scale. that’s because if it doesn’t work for some plant, or animal, if a tree instead of fixing carbon and releasing oxygen somehow does the opposite, this individual dies, along with all the one carrying the same burden – biologist would call it an unfortunate, or disadvantageous “mutation”.
@Eastleigh6 (2-) … @Eastleigh6 (2-) draw, like they did, a grid and set rules for the colouring of the boxes. Once you reach the bottom, you do it again, or continue, with the same set of rules, but add that rule: if you color one next to one already coloured, then both turn another colour, or their colour disappear. With a simple set of rules – maybe not as simple as this one but you get the idea, an iterative process -, a great number of iterations, of coloring the grid might get you a pattern.
@Eastleigh6 (1-)It … @Eastleigh6 (1-)It is absolutely amazing, yes! So amazing to us, in fact, that it seems engineered by a greater mind. But people have looked at that particular aspect of the world – mathematicians, physicists, biologists – and tried to understand how structures can manifest themselves at various scales giving us this sense of intelligent design.
First, some of them – mathematicians – have noticed the following:
It is even more … It is even more powerful to think that no one ever created this stuff, we just see it beautiful because it is strange to us living everyday life
wow how he explains … wow how he explains it is so beautiful…i don’t know how people say this can’t be intelligent design…how the sun and plants and air all work together just amazing
I’m sure he would … I’m sure he would appreciate the correction as well because it’s such an unexpected and fundamental piece to photosynthesis, but no matter. If people understood what a feat it is to split water into its component parts, that in all of the amazing diversity of biology with its numerous renditions of photosynthesis the ability to do this has only evolved once to our knowledge, they may appreciate this technical correction more.
people do that with … people do that with alan watts videos too. so annoying. perhaps if they actually knew what they were talking about they’d be famousw scientists/philosophers. but no, they think they know better
feynmans genius was … feynmans genius was to take something complex and dumb it down, thats what hes doing here. you can try to correct him all you want but by dumbing it down you are gonna leave stuff out naturally. im sure if he wanted to be more technical he could talk 1000 circles around anyone that has ever seen this video, nubs.
Physicist Richard Feynman talks more about jiggling atoms and heat, and about what fire is… From the BBC TV series ‘Fun to Imagine’(1983)
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@cyberflo999 we’ll …
@cyberflo999 we’ll first of all i don’t believe in religion… and second i really won’t come on here like i have all the answers or like I know alot of scientific phenomena [because i don't]…as we progess through life, over the years to come better technology will come up and maybe we’ll REALLY understand where we came from…but besides that i think the main goal of science is just that..trying to search for the void thats missing…But good statements you make
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@Eastleigh6 (4- …
@Eastleigh6 (4- and last…) This, they call evolution, not intelligent design. For unlike you, they say “here’s what we know; here’s how the world works, how we understand it to work so far from our experiment. That’s it.”.
They don’t – can’t – acknowlodge God’s imprint on it because things can be explained without the concept of God.
The truth religion claims are not to be questionned. That’s an unfortunate way of thinking.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@Eastleigh6 (3-) …
@Eastleigh6 (3-) Those amazing things are called cellular automata.
Then, biologist explained why it seems to work so well at our scale. that’s because if it doesn’t work for some plant, or animal, if a tree instead of fixing carbon and releasing oxygen somehow does the opposite, this individual dies, along with all the one carrying the same burden – biologist would call it an unfortunate, or disadvantageous “mutation”.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@Eastleigh6 (2-) …
@Eastleigh6 (2-) draw, like they did, a grid and set rules for the colouring of the boxes. Once you reach the bottom, you do it again, or continue, with the same set of rules, but add that rule: if you color one next to one already coloured, then both turn another colour, or their colour disappear. With a simple set of rules – maybe not as simple as this one but you get the idea, an iterative process -, a great number of iterations, of coloring the grid might get you a pattern.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@Eastleigh6 (1-)It …
@Eastleigh6 (1-)It is absolutely amazing, yes! So amazing to us, in fact, that it seems engineered by a greater mind. But people have looked at that particular aspect of the world – mathematicians, physicists, biologists – and tried to understand how structures can manifest themselves at various scales giving us this sense of intelligent design.
First, some of them – mathematicians – have noticed the following:
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
ChristopherJSykes …
ChristopherJSykes Rocks !!!
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@TheFelzix i’d …
@TheFelzix i’d rather agree with that
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@Eastleigh6 It’s …
@Eastleigh6 It’s wrong to say that it cannot be intelligently designed, but it’s also wrong to say that it must be.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
cool i always …
cool i always wondered how fire worked
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@Eastleigh6 He is …
@Eastleigh6 He is one of that persons, that is convinced, that all these “things” arent designed.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
MIND BLOWN
MIND BLOWN
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
My question – is he …
My question – is he high? He keeps forgetting
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
that’s the last …
that’s the last thing that i will learn from him,,
from now on i will look for the answers myself,
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
It is even more …
It is even more powerful to think that no one ever created this stuff, we just see it beautiful because it is strange to us living everyday life
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
wow how he explains …
wow how he explains it is so beautiful…i don’t know how people say this can’t be intelligent design…how the sun and plants and air all work together just amazing
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
I’m sure he would …
I’m sure he would appreciate the correction as well because it’s such an unexpected and fundamental piece to photosynthesis, but no matter. If people understood what a feat it is to split water into its component parts, that in all of the amazing diversity of biology with its numerous renditions of photosynthesis the ability to do this has only evolved once to our knowledge, they may appreciate this technical correction more.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
I’m sure Feynman …
I’m sure Feynman would appreciate your understanding of and interest in photosynthesis. No one on youtube seems to appreciate it.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Oxygen is plant …
Oxygen is plant pollution.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
people do that with …
people do that with alan watts videos too. so annoying. perhaps if they actually knew what they were talking about they’d be famousw scientists/philosophers. but no, they think they know better
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Great idea, let’s …
Great idea, let’s try to correct a genius for making things sound simplistic.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Love the volcano …
Love the volcano analogy
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@BlueN0vember:
…
@BlueN0vember:
when you can take heat “energy” and remake it into mass, I’ll be the first to say I was wrong.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
I think Einstein …
I think Einstein would have something to say about that. I think he made some equation or something.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Great seeing the …
Great seeing the man grinning with delight when speaking about nature!
May 8th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
feynmans genius was …
feynmans genius was to take something complex and dumb it down, thats what hes doing here. you can try to correct him all you want but by dumbing it down you are gonna leave stuff out naturally. im sure if he wanted to be more technical he could talk 1000 circles around anyone that has ever seen this video, nubs.