Isn't that a stoat in winter fur (also called ermine)?

This video DOES include suppositions about the nature of the designer simply by naming it the designer of our universe.

1. The designer must be even more complex that it's design.
2. The designer must be able to shape at least one universe.
3. ...

To simply state that this designer in itself is un-designed because it is eternal carries the same argumentative weight as saying that the universe was not designed because it wasn't.

Regarding the assumption that this video does prove that there are design features to be found throughout the universe, the other participants in this thread have shown more eloquently than I would be able to that thsi is not the case.

That is not proving a negative.
What we are talking about here is a statement that is unfalsifiable. "There is a god/designer" is unfalsifiable, because you cannot disprove its existence or prove its non-existence.

But missing proof of something's non-existence is in no way prove of its existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I would venture that these two statements are not "equally false", they are instead "not even wrong"..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

If I can spot a logical fallacy in their arguments, it must be huge.

"There is no scientific evidence for the existence of this multiverse, it cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved and the Universe Generator itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning"

also means

"There is no scientific evidence for the design and Designer of this universe, it cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved and the Designer itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning and would require a Designer itself that would require an enormous amount of fine tuning and would require a Designer itself that ... -> infinite regression"

And generally:

The weak anthropic principle only states that for us being able to observe this universe and wonder about why it seems to be so fine tuned to allow our existence it must have been tuned so fine to allow for our existence. It does not state how this came about and it most certainly does not call for a multiverse.

Chance cannot be ruled out. If something has happened, no matter how unlikely we think it might have been, it was just likely enough to have happened.

For it to become likely enough, there can be any number of reasons, two of them being universes existing in parallel (ie. a multiverse), as well as universes existing in series.

The problem that the maker of this video cannot see is that the theory of a designer only adds to the number of additional unproved assumptions on your effort to prove a number of unproved assumptions.

Ooops. Forgot a winking smiley after my whining.

That statement shows that you really really really really really really really really really really really really really don't know what socialism means.

I assume that you are from the USA, the "land of free" where peole routinely forget that "liberal" is not a swear word?

BTW: It's not my mother tongue, but shouldn't the headline read something like "THE republican party has FALLEN off the political spectrum"?

You are of course right. I seem to have forgotten that it started with Vader vs Hitlier.

Hm. A moderately (If I can judge that) historically acurate George Washington vs. the Mel Gibson fantasy of WIlliam Wallace. ERB has certainly done better in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace
"Sir William Wallace (...) was a Scottish landowner (...) a member of the lesser nobility (...)"

Most important, he was not a Highlander an as such did not wear a kilt or paint his face.

And....

"("Braveheart"), however, is a highly fictionalized account of Wallace's life and has been described by some as one of the most historically inaccurate modern films."

The US commercialises everything. A Period starter kit?
What about the hello boner package or the "My First Dump" toddler present (I used the name first! Back off!)

Thank you robbersdog49, your reply said everything I meant to say only more concisely than I would have managed.

To your fears for the future of our children: I fear that our children will one day realize what a bunch of assholes we have been to the environment.
Then they will bitch about our stupidity while screewing over the environment on a much bigger scale than we ever did.
Stupidity tends to repeat itself throughout history.
Our ability to protect the environment has grown through history to the same extend as our ability to wreck it. Take a look around what abillity we use to the fullest .....

To label "climate change" as a controversy is the same as labeling gravity as a controversy.
Even the question whether the climate change that we are undeniably experiencing right now is human induced, human accelerated or has nothing whatsoever to do with humans is not that much of a controversy as over 97% of 12.000 peer revied papers were arguing for a human cause.

As far as I understand the psychological reasoning behind this, it is the same as a well known effect in the area of suicides which in Germany we call Werther Effect after a novel be Wolfgang Goethe (published 1774), which caused a number of "copycat suicides".

It seems to me that a potential spree killer is desperately trying to be noticed by society either out of personal, religious or political reasons.

If you show such persons that they will get noticed, that they will get there 15 minutes of fame, it might push them a closer to the realization that committing mass murder is a way to be "noticed".

And btw it takes out every bit of "creativity" and "art" from light painting too!
It's like "painting" the Mona Lisa with a color printer!