Do Not Feed The Manatee? 
Wouldn’t be enough. It would simply refute the leading theory.
How would you determine it “clearly artificial”?
Gotta agree with this stuff. The fact that none of it happens is in fact pretty good evidence that it doesn’t exist.
Like?
Yeah, but if the fossil record showed that animals never changed the obvious conclusion would be that we were placed here at one time.
Stars arrayed in patterns.
Something about the physics of the big bang that showed that forces from outside the universe were involved in crafting it. I’m not a physicist, mind you, but say if the universe we had today simply couldn’t have developed the way it did without an injection of energy, force or matter from an extra-universe source.
Non Physics analogy: We have a cake. But the house has no eggs. The house had flour and sugar and butter, but the eggs must have been provided from outside the house!
Not that I really understand Hawking but to me, his latest book seemed to say that the net energy in the universe is zero, yet we still have particles spontaneously appear. Therefore we did actually “come from nothing”.
I’m surprised Kirk Cameron has any credibility for any topic after the banana thing.
You owe me a new keyboard
[quote=“Budget_Player_Cadet, post:236, topic:582818”]
A “joke”? Define hell for me. What is your definition of “hell”? What is hell to you? Because I assure you, if it’s anything like what most christians assume (The Divine Comedy-style stuff) then it’s incredibly sadistic to even think that someone deserves to go there; it’s a sign of incredible thoughtlessness or sociopathy. Knowing you, I wouldn’t doubt either.
Also, I hope you get waterboarded. 
I’m a sociopath but at least I’ll be honest about it.
QUOTE]
Hmmmmmm:dubious: What is hell to me?
That would be kind of like meeting YOU in real life. That, my dear, is MY definition of hell:D
Thanks for hoping I get waterboarded. You’re an all around great guy now aren’t ya?
You’re entirely correct. I was responding to the link in the OP, without taking the time to chase down the actual interview. My bad.
The term God doesn’t just mean “the thing that created the universe.” A God is an active agent, with will and purpose. Once you insert God into the equation, you’re asserting that the universe was created by someone, for a purpose. Calling a series of random quantum fluctuations “God” is a radical redefinition of the term, to the extent that it no longer reflects how the word is commonly understood.
The problem with it is that its entirely circular. You haven’t defined the concept, you’ve just arbitrarily applied a different label to it. Making “origin of the universe” equal “God” doesn’t help us understand the question in any way, it just confuses things by bringing in five thousand years of extra baggage attached to the concept of “God.”
You can, certainly - but you can’t discard 99% of what a person says, and then claim that they’re correct. The argument that you’re putting forward bears no relationship to what Kirk Cameron believes. You can’t say, “Kirk Cameron is right about God creating the universe, if you define “God” to mean something entirely different than what Kirk Cameron believes.”
You may have a valid point in your redefinition of God to fit Hawking’s ideas about the origins of the universe (although I don’t think that you do) but that’s not Cameron’s argument at all.
PROTIP: You just did.
Ironically, that was meant as a straightforward explanation of the term. I guess it’s funny because it’s true.
hawking qualifies as a playboy pitchman while cameron doesn’t.
Fair enough.
This, on the other hand, is not good reasoning. In 5-card-draw poker, your odds of drawing a royal flush of spades is exactly the same as literally any hand. Just like having stars arranged in a way so that you can read out “dickbutt was here” has a similar likelihood of any other individual constellation, it just means something to us. If our alphabet was different, then there could be star patterns right now that spell out something like, say, how water purification plants work. Do you understand what I mean? If not, let me make this less clear… Imagine that a certain constellation of stars made an exact drawing of a modern computer chip… Would a more primitive civilization be able to see that (clearly extraordinary) pattern? What we recognize as “patterns” is entirely dependent on how we view the world around us.
Gotta love the fundies, always up for making the world a better place.
I was thinking specifically about snowflake or geometric patterns that were the only stars. Bonus points if they are all in the same plane in space, as if they were on a giant dome.
But that said, stars arranged in a pattern that is highly unlikely to be random would only be evidence of design, not a slam-dunk.
No pattern can be “highly unlikely to be random”. 1,2,3,4,5,6 can be obtained by random methods (i.e. rolling a die) just as often as 2,3,2,4,6,1. It happens to form a recognizable pattern. That doesn’t make it any less random.
Furthermore, given an infinite universe containing an infinity of stars there is necessarily an infinity of possible permutations and star patterns, or near enough. Even if you found a constellation of stars that spelled out the words “I am the Lord thy God now STFU” in plain English when viewed from the right angle, that would still very likely be random chance. Think monkeys & typewriters.
(and as **Budget **notes, that phrase would only appear like a miraculous pattern to us because we know the Roman alphabet. Had we stuck with cuneiform, that stupendous constellation would be as meaningless as any other)
Hmmm. I wonder what the stars do say, if you read them in cuneiform-ese…
You’re not visualizing what I mean. There are no stars except in the center of each of the twelve quadrants when seen from Earth. Each of the twelve areas has a grouping of stars in the same plane (that is to say, the same distance from Earth) and each has a specific, highly unlikely to be randomly distributed by random chance arrangements. For instance, one constellation is 1000 stars looking like the fetus. Another is 1000 stars in the shape of a human hand. Another a human face with a beard and so on.
I fully understand that you can see whatever shapes you want in the stars, I’m suggesting that we’d have some reasonable evidence for a created universe if the only stars in existence were arranged in highly detailed constellations that look like objects we see every day. An arrangement like that would be akin to dropping a jar of pennies and having it land in the detailed shape of the Mona Lisa.
While a god that set up obvious signs of him/her/itself would be pretty good evidence of god, I’m not sure why anyone would expect him/her/it to.
Also, while a god could break the laws of the universe he/she/it set up, I don’t see why anyone would expect him/her/it to.
You sir (or ma’am - I can’t tell from your user name) clearly suffer from a lack of humor. I tried to ignore this comment, I tried to remain detached and rise above it, but obviously I have not yet achieved that point of enlightenment. The ‘blimp thread’ was without a doubt the funniest thing ever written on this board - and this board has some really great humor! You know how chat and message boards use "LOL’ to indicate that someone actually laughed out loud? Well, usually that’s an exaggeration - but the ‘blimp thread’? That is what ‘LOL’ is all about.
I don’t care what Scylla says at this point. He can take a stand on the flat earth theory and I would still find him admirable. Deluded, yes, but admirable!
If I have to have a God, I’m going to elect Scylla based entirely on the ‘blimp thread’!
That is exactly the kind of God that I want! 
As far as your stand on deism, I have no argument with that…
Could happen, couldn’t it ? Smash enough penny jars, I’m sure you’ll get there eventually (damn you, now I’m trying to figure out how to code a penny-jar dropping simulation 
)
I’m still not seeing how different it is from saying “1,2,3,4,5,6 is not random”. Yes, your star system would be an impressive coincidence. It would not be any more evidence for a creator than the banana.