8 Responses to “Nice Building”

1. StephInSD Says:
   October 22nd, 2006 at 2:33 am

   Hurray, this is yet another proof of God existence! How could such a cloud have come into existence otherwise?

Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 2:33 am

2. Fred Haster Says:
   October 22nd, 2006 at 5:50 am

   Hurray, this is yet another proof of God existence! How could such a cloud have come into existence otherwise?

   Steph, the cloud was clearly doctored. It was intelligently designed. Here is another post from you were emotion and assumptions trump your ability to see what is actually going on. I've read your 3 posts and there is a consistent theme. Are you able to conduct yourself in a civil manner?

Comment by Fred Haster — October 22, 2006 @ 5:50 am

3. Douglas Says:
   October 22nd, 2006 at 12:30 pm

   Fred,

   How could the cloud have been doctored? Sky-writers aren't that skilled, I don't think. Clearly, the only explanation is Multiverse Theory.

Comment by Douglas — October 22, 2006 @ 12:30 pm

4. StephInSD Says:
   October 22nd, 2006 at 3:54 pm

   Steph, the cloud was clearly doctored. It was intelligently designed. Here is another post from you were emotion and assumptions trump your ability to see what is actually going on. I've read your 3 posts and there is a consistent theme. Are you able to conduct yourself in a civil manner?

   I am obviously sarcastic. It is important to show how some beliefs are truly laughable. I do not know if this picture was doctored or not. It may or it may not, I don't have enough data to say either way. If you google for images with rabbit & cloud, you see countless of them, many looks very much real. My point is that creationists will use missing links or yet not understood processes as a proof of God existence. This is a dishonest to say the least.

Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 3:54 pm

5. Doug Says:
   October 23rd, 2006 at 8:58 am

   Fred and Steph, could you quit bickering? Fred you shouldn't have posted that link and Steph you could try being alittle more considerate.

Comment by Doug — October 23, 2006 @ 8:58 am

6. Jehu Says:
   October 23rd, 2006 at 3:41 pm

   StepenInSD
   

   If you google for images with rabbit & cloud, you see countless of them, many looks very much real. My point is that creationists will use missing links or yet not understood processes as a proof of God existence. This is a dishonest to say the least.

   You have failed miserably in making your point. A small understanding of probability reveals that this image is designed and not a chance formation of clouds.

   Why is it obvious that this rabbitt is designed?

   First, notice the eye. Although the ears and the shape of the head and body are very unlikely to occur by natural forces, it is perhaps possible. However, for natural random forces to place a hole in the cloud that makes an eye, in the approximate location and size of a rabbit eye, exceeds any possibility of chance. This is a classic example of specified complexity. The image was photoshopped.

   After realizing that it is designed and not the product of natural forces, you can see other improbable aspects such as the nose, cheeks, and brow that tell us that this is photoshop and not nature. Comparison with images on Google of actual chance formations illustrates how easy it is to see that this image is designed.

Comment by Jehu — October 23, 2006 @ 3:41 pm

7. StephInSD Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 4:09 am

   You have failed miserably in making your point. A small understanding of probability reveals that this image is designed and not a chance formation of clouds.

   After carefully reviewing the original image, I have to say that I agree with you that the image was most likely designed. Sadly it does not change my point that creationists will use missing links or yet not understood processes as a proof of God existence. This is a fact. I should also include ID advocates as part of my point.

Comment by StephInSD — October 24, 2006 @ 4:09 am

8. Jehu Says:
   October 24th, 2006 at 1:09 pm

   After carefully reviewing the original image, I have to say that I agree with you that the image was most likely designed.

   Most likely designed? No. It is obviously designed. Why is it obviously designed? Because of the specified complexity of the pattern. Unless you are a gullible fool you will realize the probability of such a pattern occuring by a chance formation of clouds is so small as to be indistinguishable from a miracle.

   Sadly it does not change my point that creationists will use missing links or yet not understood processes as a proof of God existence. This is a fact. I should also include ID advocates as part of my point.

   At least you admit that you can in fact detect design. Now if you could stop accepting by faith the patently false notions that the universe created itself or that life can occur from nonlife by random processes, you will on the way to intellectual honesty.

Comment by Jehu — October 24, 2006 @ 1:09 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.