It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

page: 16
57
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


The very first link you posted supports what I'm saying. This means you're just blindy posting links in hopes no one will actually read them or you're just blindly posting links and you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.


Just saying this is true doesn't make it so. You have to actually show some comparisons to your words and the actual text in the link.

Besides. I just posted links to answer the questions reasked by someone else, out of context. I could care less about your unreasoned attempt to declare evolution false.




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic
I could care less about your unreasoned attempt to declare evolution false.


You have it mixed up. We are arguing for a Reasonable Intelligent account of the creation of life. it is some evolutionists, on the contrary, who are saying there was no reasonable intelligence involved.
edit on 11-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic
I could care less about your unreasoned attempt to declare evolution false.


You have it mixed up. We are arguing for a Reasonable Intelligent account of the creation of life. it is some evolutionists, on the contrary, who are saying there was no reasonable intelligence involved.


That's likely because evolution looks haphazard and unintelligent in its design methodology. Take breeding dogs for instance. Before humans even knew what evolution was, we had figured out how to domesticate and breed certain traits into dogs to get certain breeds or traits to help them be better companions to humans. Due to this, the number of breeds of dogs EXPLODED within the last few thousands years. THAT is an example of intelligent design. Identifying key traits you want to keep and ones you want to discard and making sure that the right animals breed to pass the right traits on.

The fact that humans can intelligently design dogs (among other species of life on the planet) WAY better than god or whatever intelligent designer you are trying to sell to the plebes doesn't strike you as odd?



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

You quoted the question and then linked to a PDF LOL!

That's not answering anything. Why can't you answer them in your own words instead of linking to a PDF and then say go Fish.


You should have gone fishing for the myths on the first link. Another clue word: "suggest". The technical jargon is there to beguile and confuse as to what point they are actually making (you can still figure it out how they are obscuring the "interdepency" problem from their argumentation and storytelling). And how they are using similarities in DNA sequences of different living organisms to invent and imagine multiple different mythological unnamed 'pink unicorn' proteobacterial ancestors in the lovely diagram they made up based on no experimentation whatsoever with these mythological bacterial ancestors (never observed, so how can you experiment with them to verify any of the claims and suggestions made regarding how it happened by mutations acted upon by natural selection). Then later on they debunk their own previous storyline, and present a new one, that also is just a maybe-so suggestion. Made to sound as plausible as possible to the biased reader who is impressed with the credentials and technical jargon used to obscure where they're drifting from facts into fiction and where the flaws are in their stories compared to the facts they conveniently leave out of the stories.

And watch them pretend you're a 'science denier' (or variants) for pointing out the above that they are the ones denying science/knowledge and established facts.

I'm now into the 2nd set of links and it's just more of the same. Just speculation, nothing conclusive (or no mention at all about how it evolved gradually over multiple generations, but mostly vague maybe-so stories invoking mythological mutation events with technical jargon to explain everything away that a person might want to ask about their stories).

The statement made by Franklin M. Herald, biochemist and evolutionist, regarding "only a variety of wishful speculations" is as true now as it was when Oxford University press, 2001, published an article about his book from which that quote was taken (and discussed in the video with Michael Behe that I shared around 31 minutes. What it says there also counts for the DNA sequencing for the Lac operon and the repressor you asked about in your 2nd question). Except Michael Behe forgets to also mention the maybe-so stories rather than only just-so stories and what Newton said about hypotheses compared to inductive reasoning and how this in turn relates to science/knowledge (a familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation or study, for which Newton proposes what he calls "experimental philosohy" or the method to acquire these facts as "experimental philosophy"; Whewell, who came up with the word "scientist", intended that word for experimental philosophers to differentiate with the ones just using their imagination and selling fanciful stories as scientific hypotheses, erronuously, but then I have to get into the definition for hypothesis and that's a whole other can of worms. Plus then we're getting into the excentric "natural philosophers" with their exotic nonsensical philosophies of the so-called "Age of Enlightenment". Too much to talk about).
edit on 11-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That's likely because evolution looks haphazard and unintelligent in its design methodology.


So you're admitting it was designed, but you think, for example, humans, look unintelligent?



Take breeding dogs for instance. Before humans even knew what evolution was, we had figured out how to domesticate and breed certain traits into dogs to get certain breeds or traits to help them be better companions to humans.


This isnt evolution though. When Japheth migrated north through the Caucus mountains, thus giving rise to the Caucasians, the average skin tone of these people became lighter because less melanin was required to absorb sunlight at higher altitudes - Would you say this is evolution? Surely not - and neither is dog breeding.



The fact that humans can intelligently design dogs (among other species of life on the planet) WAY better than god or whatever intelligent designer you are trying to sell to the plebes doesn't strike you as odd?


Until humans can create cyborgs that can match the potential of the human, which would require all of the following: free will, self-repairing mechanisms, reproduction mechanisms, creative abilities, intuition, emotions, a central pump that can work non-stop for over 100 years (heart), the ability to learn, stand upright, adapt to various environments, and so on - I will consider that God has much more intelligent prowess than humans.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




the paradox: How could the genes that code for the proteins involved in replication, transcription and translation have evolved when there were no proteins to forego such processes? All of these processes would have had to come into effect simultaneously, incomplete machinery would not suffice. Without replication you have no offspring, without transcription you have no mRNA, without translation you have no proteins - all of these processes require proteins which require genes. Not to mention all the necessary regulative agents that control said processes.


You have a problem, my dear boy. This has been answered so many times that you would think by now you'd be embarrassed to ask it again.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423


You have a problem, my dear boy. This has been answered so many times that you would think by now you'd be embarrassed to ask it again.



Are you referring to that laughable article you gave that cited nothing and did not even explain the starting materials that were used? Read the comments on the article and you will see all the warranted criticism. I honestly would have loved to read an actual scientific experiment that demonstrates the simultaneous evolution of translation, transcription, reproduction and the necessary regulative agents. You use the same tactic as Krazysh0t - Copy and paste a link to a research study (or in your case, a science blog) that you don't read but seems relevant to the keywords you searched for, tell us to read it, then we read it and explain to you that it explains nothing. Then you ignore such and start using insults.

edit on 11-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423


You have a problem, my dear boy. This has been answered so many times that you would think by now you'd be embarrassed to ask it again.



Are you referring to that laughable article you gave that cited nothing and did not even explain the starting materials that were used? Read the comments on the article and you will see all the warranted criticism. I honestly would have loved to read an actual scientific experiment that demonstrates the simultaneous evolution of translation, transcription, reproduction and the necessary regulative agents. You use the same tactic as Krazysh0t - Copy and paste a link to a research study (or in your case, a science blog) that you don't read but seems relevant to the keywords you searched for, tell us to read it, then we read it and explain to you that it explains nothing. Then you ignore such and start using insults.



I'm not responsible for your deplorable understanding of science or your lack of reading comprehension. The post is linked below. Read the paper. Figure it out. Then come back.


From the article:




'Immortalized' Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory. More significantly, the scientists then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube." Remarkably, they bred.



www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 11-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic
I could care less about your unreasoned attempt to declare evolution false.


You have it mixed up. We are arguing for a Reasonable Intelligent account of the creation of life. it is some evolutionists, on the contrary, who are saying there was no reasonable intelligence involved.


You may be arguing in favor of a "Reasonable Intelligent" account for the origins of life but after 16 pages, not one piece of affirmative, actionable, testable evidence has been offered to support that position. Nothing more than repeated insistence that anyone who doesn't buy into an intelligent designer of all life won't address the "questions" in their own words. Which in all honesty, is the height of hypocrisy considering the entire OP is ripped off from Sanford and his hokum book and not in the words of the OP at all.

All the talk about how a "Cornell Geneticist" rejects "Darwinism" is a joke. Anyone currently working in the biological sciences or Genetics that refers to Darwinism is pandering to a demographic to garner sales of a book and ignoring the last 70 years worth of advances in their respective fields. I typically try to shy away from ragging on the man instead of the data but since Sanford has been propped up from the beginning of the OP as this respected geneticist from Cornell, I'm going to set things a little straighter here. He never taught at the actual Ithaca Campus where all of the actual genetic work is done. He worked about an hr away at their agricultural campus where he taught plant genetics and how to improve crop yields and later worked on GMO's. Yes, he did some good genetic work and has the patents to prove it if you're into genetically modified food.

The question that everyone should be asking is why did Sanford publish himself a novel instead of doing the research, writing an appropriate paper and submitting it for peer review? If he's so correct,if he has actual data supporting his thesis, then why is the book being pushed through YEC sites with links to his Amazon page and not subject to review by other competent geneticists? Nope... Sanford took the easy way out where he can avoid professional criticism. It's also interesting to note that he waited to retire before opting to publish his unsupported fluff 'n buff. He dresses his BS up in purdy sciencey talk but there's not any actual science in there to rebut. This is a man wh has published over 70 peer reviewed papers in his life but something THIS paradigm altering to the entirety of all biological and Earth sciences is published as a book?

Let's see actual evidence supporting ID instead of trotting out straw man arguments and demanding refutations of garbage that doesn't actually seem to be understood by the OP who is so insistent that refutations be put into someone's own words when the entirety of their OP is cribbed from Sanford. Insisting that something is intelligently designed because you are incredulous as to how natural processes could have allowed for something is not the same thing as providing evidence to support your position. Until that happens, this isn't a discussion let alone a debate...which by the way, if you think you are debating, you are in the incorrect forum. There is a debate forum for just that purpose.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

This whole post says nothing and answers nothing. It's just a diatribe against Sanford and anyone who dares to ask these questions. You haven't responded to any of the evidence presented. You haven't answered any question. You have just done what most people do who can't respond. You basically say, how dare anyone ask questions that can't be answered.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: peter vlar

This whole post says nothing and answers nothing. It's just a diatribe against Sanford and anyone who dares to ask these questions. You haven't responded to any of the evidence presented. You haven't answered any question. You have just done what most people do who can't respond. You basically say, how dare anyone ask questions that can't be answered.


You haven't posted a single question that hasn't been answered. Whether you like the answers or not, they have been posted. By contrast, you have posted net zero evidence for your opinion. It's just a lot of blabber on topics you know absolutely nothing about. You're a perfect example of willful ignorance.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You haven't presented any evidence to respond to. That you think you have demonstrates how out of your depth you are on this particular subject matter. I'm all for asking questions, you just haven't asked any that have not been answered already. You whine and birch about people refuting in their own words but the entire OP is nothing but Sanford's own words. And if you don't think it's ridiculously sketchy that Sanford waited until retirement to publish a book and skipped directly past the peer review process which has been so good to him then I don't know what else to say to you. He has over 70 peer reviewed papers to his credit. Why? Because the data could be supported and replicated.yet this super important, paradigm shifting data isn't up for review? Sounds really legit. Your entire premise is based on 1 single scientist. 97% of Earth Scientists who are members of the NAS support Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because the data is there to support it. Please post any data that provides evidence for an intelligent designer. It's only been 16 pages.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

I'm not responsible for your deplorable understanding of science or your lack of reading comprehension. The post is linked below. Read the paper. Figure it out. Then come back.

From the article:

'Immortalized' Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory. More significantly, the scientists then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube." Remarkably, they bred.



I wasn't being sarcastic when I said I actually wanted to read the scientific paper. Is there more than just the words from a science blog? Also, researchers creating things is intelligent, and does not mimic the hypothetical random unintelligent nature of evolution - making this an erroneous claim in context of what we are talking about, regardless. Still, I'd love to read the original article.


originally posted by: peter vlar

You may be arguing in favor of a "Reasonable Intelligent" account for the origins of life but after 16 pages, not one piece of affirmative, actionable, testable evidence has been offered to support that position.


I was under the impression that this thread is more so proving the impossibility of evolution (especially without intelligent agency). But, if you want proof of intelligence involved in creation, in my opinion, I have such. Do you believe mathematics are intelligent or not intelligent? Assuming you say intelligent, I agree with you. With biological systems, we are constantly observing mathematical consistences - from rate laws, to kinetics, to Phi in the human body. Plato and I (not to put myself on his level, but just as a reference) both agree that these mathematical forms are signs of universal truth and are signatures of a Reasonable Creator.



He worked about an hr away at their agricultural campus where he taught plant genetics and how to improve crop yields and later worked on GMO's. Yes, he did some good genetic work and has the patents to prove it if you're into genetically modified food.


Although I'm not into genetically modified food, This man's scientific accomplishments do not undermine the validity of his statements.



The question that everyone should be asking is why did Sanford publish himself a novel instead of doing the research, writing an appropriate paper and submitting it for peer review? If he's so correct,if he has actual data supporting his thesis, then why is the book being pushed through YEC sites with links to his Amazon page and not subject to review by other competent geneticists? Nope... Sanford took the easy way out where he can avoid professional criticism. It's also interesting to note that he waited to retire before opting to publish his unsupported fluff 'n buff. He dresses his BS up in purdy sciencey talk but there's not any actual science in there to rebut. This is a man wh has published over 70 peer reviewed papers in his life but something THIS paradigm altering to the entirety of all biological and Earth sciences is published as a book?


Peter, you know the answer to this question. No scientific journal is going to accept anything that even considers something that invalidates evolution - it would be suicide. Just like it was suicide to question church dogma back during the inquisition (err, not exactly, but, it would be the death of your profession rather than bodily death). Now the scientific dogma has become just as ravenous a monster as the ignorant church dogma back in the day, which hypocritically did not adhere to any of Christ's teachings, just like contemporary science is not adhering to logic when it comes to the plausibility of evolution.

edit on 11-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: neoholographic

You haven't presented any evidence to respond to. That you think you have demonstrates how out of your depth you are on this particular subject matter. I'm all for asking questions, you just haven't asked any that have not been answered already. You whine and birch about people refuting in their own words but the entire OP is nothing but Sanford's own words. And if you don't think it's ridiculously sketchy that Sanford waited until retirement to publish a book and skipped directly past the peer review process which has been so good to him then I don't know what else to say to you. He has over 70 peer reviewed papers to his credit. Why? Because the data could be supported and replicated.yet this super important, paradigm shifting data isn't up for review? Sounds really legit. Your entire premise is based on 1 single scientist. 97% of Earth Scientists who are members of the NAS support Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because the data is there to support it. Please post any data that provides evidence for an intelligent designer. It's only been 16 pages.







None of them can do it. That's why there's 16 pages. Faulty logic and belief systems founded in hot air is about it, I'm afraid.

edit on 11-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




I wasn't being sarcastic when I said I actually wanted to read the scientific paper. Is there more than just the words from a science blog? Also, researchers creating things is intelligent, and does not mimic the hypothetical random unintelligent nature of evolution - making this an erroneous claim in context of what we are talking about, regardless. Still, I'd love to read the original article.


And that's why your science education and reading comprehension are atrocious - you can't even research the original article.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Your post shows you haven't even bothered to read the thread. It's shameful really but it's expected. You said:

I'm all for asking questions, you just haven't asked any that have not been answered already. You whine and birch about people refuting in their own words but the entire OP is nothing but Sanford's own words.

Sad really.

1. You don't refute anything that Sanford has said. He retired and published a book so has many other Scientist. This shows how you're grasping at straws. You don't refute any evidence presented but you think complaining about a Scientist writing a book after retirement means everything he says is false. It's just idiotic.

Secondly, I mentioned Sanford in my first post and presented mountains of other evidence to support what I'm saying. The fact is, you can't refute the evidence presented so you say things like this:

Your entire premise is based on 1 single scientist.

Wow that's a WHOPPER of a lie. I mentioned Sanford in 1 maybe 2 post. This thread is 16 pages long and I have presented mountains of evidence along with others.

Because you can't respond or refute anything that has been said, you complain about a Scientist writing a book after retirement.

Try reading the thread beyond the OP and then debate the evidence presented.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: peter vlar

Your post shows you haven't even bothered to read the thread. It's shameful really but it's expected. You said:

I'm all for asking questions, you just haven't asked any that have not been answered already. You whine and birch about people refuting in their own words but the entire OP is nothing but Sanford's own words.

Sad really.

1. You don't refute anything that Sanford has said. He retired and published a book so has many other Scientist. This shows how you're grasping at straws. You don't refute any evidence presented but you think complaining about a Scientist writing a book after retirement means everything he says is false. It's just idiotic.

Secondly, I mentioned Sanford in my first post and presented mountains of other evidence to support what I'm saying. The fact is, you can't refute the evidence presented so you say things like this:

Your entire premise is based on 1 single scientist.

Wow that's a WHOPPER of a lie. I mentioned Sanford in 1 maybe 2 post. This thread is 16 pages long and I have presented mountains of evidence along with others.

Because you can't respond or refute anything that has been said, you complain about a Scientist writing a book after retirement.

Try reading the thread beyond the OP and then debate the evidence presented.


At least he has one scientists (among others) - you have zip.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
My brother is a geneticist and is working on designer viruses. But, if only God can create life, he must be a god. That's going to be great when he next visits-all I accomplished this year was a promotion at work.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton


originally posted by: peter vlar


I was under the impression that this thread is more so proving the impossibility of evolution (especially without intelligent agency).


That may very well be the premise, but if that is the case, it isn't a very scientific approach. In science one provides evidence in favor of something, one does not prove a negative.



But, if you want proof of intelligence involved in creation, in my opinion, I have such. Do you believe mathematics are intelligent or not intelligent? Assuming you say intelligent, I agree with you. With biological systems, we are constantly observing mathematical consistences - from rate laws, to kinetics, to Phi in the human body. Plato and I (not to put myself on his level, but just as a reference) both agree that these mathematical forms are signs of universal truth and are signatures of a Reasonable Creator.


I asked for evidence, you say you're providing it and end with " Plato and I agree". That's your interpretation with no context. How exactly is that evidence?


Although I'm not into genetically modified food, This man's scientific accomplishments do not undermine the validity of his statements.


No, I agree. However, his accomplishments also do not lend credence to the thesis either.



Peter, you know the answer to this question. No scientific journal is going to accept anything that even considers something that invalidates evolution - it would be suicide. Just like it was suicide to question church dogma back during the inquisition (err, not exactly, but, it would be the death of your profession rather than bodily death). Now the scientific dogma has become just as ravenous a monster as the ignorant church dogma back in the day, which hypocritically did not adhere to any of Christ's teachings, just like contemporary science is not adhering to logic when it comes to the plausibility of evolution.


Oh bull s#. He's retired from full time teaching. He doesn't have a career to worry about. He's going to be making mint until the day he dies from his GMO patents so there is no financial worry either. The fact that he has published over 70 papers guarantees that he will be reviewed. He doesn't speak about this with other geneticists, he doesn't appear at conferences. He takes speaking engagements for YEC groups and he testified in a Kansas ID/ Evolution trial a few years back where he gave oddly inconsistent answers that made him look foolish in my opinion. He doesn't give any definitive answers about anything. For example, when questioned on the age of the Earth he answered that it's far less than what is currently taught. Then when pressed, he states that it's probably less than 100KA. Then he shifts to possibly less than 10KA but not less than 5 KA. So all he really said was that he doesn't believe the Earth is 4.5Bn and is probably less than 100 KA. Not very scientific of a man of his calibre is it?

As f your last bit there, more BS. Science doesn't adhere to logic regarding the plausibility of MES? That's because practitioners of science utilize the scientific method and follow the evidence and the data. Something the proponents of ID might want to give a try.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Oh, how the hypocrisy and projection burns! Check out this post and to add to the lie, four members "knee jerked" and gave it stars.





I have seen nothing proven, just more sensationalism and knee jerk reactions from those who need their respective faiths shored up by these reports. Its not the first study and wont be the last, they might even prove something one day, who knows One thing proven is that some will grasp at straws.
Enjoy your life Barcs, I doesnt bother me


I think it's hilarious these creationist are accusing atheist of having faith in science or atheism as a religion!? Like deep down they know religion is a bad idea.
If atheism is a religion then when can I claim exempt on my taxes?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join