It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 33
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 04:39 AM

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: whereislogic

How can you charge Plato with the 'crime' of using the word incorrectly?

And again you twist what I was talking about. I was clearly talking about John Lennox using a wrong application, as in the Greek philosophical meaning "reason" and its philosophical expansions, for the "Logos" mentioned in the bible in reference to Jesus (for which I used John 1:1 as an example because that was the text John Lennox was referring to). And then John Lennox switched to "mind" (allthough he didn't spell any of that out, but you can tell from the way he's talking about "mind" that he's thinking along that path).

I only mentioned Plato also being involved in philosophizing about the Greek word "Logos" along that application of "reason/meditation/thought"). It's called an adjective. You're just mixing all the different adjectives or the way people have used the Greek word "Logos" in one big pot and pretend it's all more of the same, doesn't matter that there's a clear distinction between the meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) and "opinion, ..., reason", which are definitely not synonymous and quite different interpretations or usages for the word "Logos" as it was used in those bible verses. And I already showed some of the history behind those usages or interpretations of the Greek word "Logos" but I know, you'll talk past that endlessly and repeatedly. So continue where you left off, I'll take a break again.
edit on 19-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 11:49 AM

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: CharlestonChew

I bet if you sat down and thought about the human body, and the way it's built, you could figure out better design ideas for different aspects.

I'd be convinced if you could come up with a more attractive design for the woman archetype.

That would be an interesting challenge

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 11:51 AM

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: CharlestonChew

I bet if you sat down and thought about the human body, and the way it's built, you could figure out better design ideas for different aspects.

Ya gotta love being able to act in hindsight. And let's just forget the fact that we can even sit down, and think about our own body and what might be wrong with it. Am I right? Poor design and function indeed.

Yeah, Engineers act in hindsight in regards to their own designs all the time. It's called prototyping and testing phases.

It's a thing that intelligent beings do to make sure their designs are sound.

Intelligent design implies the ability to upgrade designs in hindsight.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:31 PM
care to explain how and why diseases mutate (evolve)?
what's the intelligent use of the appendix?
what's the intelligent use of male nipples?
why do some people get wisdom teeth?
the human tailbone is minus a tail, why?
why are there wings on flightless birds?
why do whales have hind leg bones, still?
around a hundred years ago creationists held up the CELL as proof of creationism, which lasted around five minutes, to those who read facts.
not long ago after GENES were cracked, creationists underwent a name change and declared this was a sign of intelligent design.
unfortunately, like the original poster, many now refuse facts and keep with their fuzzy logic.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:40 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

Great thread...however you should have put a disclaimer that you are a "Christian leaning" ....
Intelligent Design..but our gods have left...I hope they don't come back any time soon. They may decide to reset history once again.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:45 PM
a reply to: Foundryman

then that designer needs to go back to engineering school because we are very poorly made. Give me the power to create organisms and I could do a vastly better job.

So many stars for another misanthropic post. So you have been to engineering school or do you wish to play god whilst sitting in your ivory tower looking at all of mans mistake. If you can't see any Love in this world then perhaps you should get out more.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:53 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

How does Transcription and Translation evolve? Transcription is a product of intelligence. I can transcribe an article to another medium and check that medium for errors. Again, this is a product of intelligence not of random mutations and natural selection.

It can just as easily be set in motion by a machine...the machine that spreads life through the Universe...initially set in motion by the missing gods.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:56 PM
a reply to: Hellhound604

Unique mammals in Australia, yet are closely related to those in South America, unique mammals in Madagascar, yet are closely related to those in Africa, things that onøy make sense if you take continental drift into account

Or Noah and the

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:59 PM
a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

He's a plant geneticist. Enough said. And evolution doesn't deal with how we originated or where we are going. This John Sandford is trying to make an impact in a field he has no place in.

So a scientist is not allowed to study other areas of science...hmmm... and they laugh at religionists...HAHAHA

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:10 PM
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

no proof or even a reason that a programmer would be required for a quantum computer to exist.

So a quantum computer...hmmm..creation ex nihilio..St Augustine. Does this theory break down and excuse itself like the "Big Bang". We are a bit better than computers - therefore we will one day create your so called "original" quantum computer. What happens then? After mans extinction from this planet a million years from now on some faraway planet some offshoot of humanity or other non-human sentient species finds signs of life. They are left with the same quandary. Which came first the biological entity or the matrix computer?

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:18 PM
a reply to: LABTECH767

Evolution without intervention? it contradict's conservation of energy.

True, but then so does a creator god; but a "supreme God" no rules apply can get away with it. Unfortunately the "supreme god" gave us free will and left us to our own devices. Its a great thing this journey of life, not being bound by ideology. Like DNA and information, the more information we have the more we can play at being god.

Who cares who is right? When they give me the choice to download my life and mind into a some super PC I'll buy one and make it a condition of my will that my descendants keep the power running. Oh what fun.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:22 PM
a reply to: TerryDon79

So your "theory" is better than LabTechs767s?. Sounds like an "article of faith" to me

According to Charles Darwin's theoryof evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:28 PM
a reply to: TerryDon79

Humans and apes are not brothers and sisters. They are cousins. They aren't the same thing, but come from the same thing.

So cousins in your family jump in bed together...bad analogy.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:53 PM
a reply to: TerryDon79

Why would I want to prove you wrong when that is howI stand?

As you threw to LabTec767

You know the device you are using to be on ATS? That's from science

How I do I know you are standing right now...seems quite a feat typing and standing. Ah yes you will respond "figure of speech". Words just words sprinkled with some science or religion. Each is entitled to their own belief system. Science without a moral or ethical constraints allows us to dehumanize the other.

Allows us to throw the Bomb at Japan even after the Declaration of Surrender. Allows us to revisit in the name of science the data on the evil human experimentation carried out by the Nazi regime in the hope of furthering our knowledge.

All I'm saying is that unbridled science if carried out without an ethical compass allows us to be treated as "assets" and a product. Be careful who you place your "faith" in. The science behind the the search for weapons of mass destruction under Saddams Husseins regime..turned out to be not very scientific.

I understand also that this being ATS and has a huge US following the lines between religion a science in the USA are often bones of contention. No-one wants a return to a YEC scenario, and yet politics are used to divide the people especially when it comes to "pro life" debates or debates on how far the laws should dictate people sexual choices or recreational drug use.

Science is never done in an "altruistic vacuum" It is done by real humans with their own "foible" and agendas and looking for results that will ensure their next research grant tides them over.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 02:02 PM
a reply to: Xstokerx

Eventually as more and more webbing forms until they glide with ease. Eventually the ones with bigger chest mussels start turning better and get to better food. Those muscle bound guys eventually start giving a bit of a flap and make it a little farther than gliding.

So chickens given enough millions of years are going to evolve into flying machines...If I leave my PC running for millions of years maybe it will evolve into a quantum computer...Just make sure its got defrag running. and not running Windows!

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 08:50 PM

originally posted by: neoholographic
The problem you have is, there isn't any answer to this question


The problem you have is, there isn't any answer to this question without intelligence.

Not true.

Remember the abiogenesis video? There are numerous possibilities without intelligence and neither you nor I know the answer for sure. Intelligence is your guess, but it's certainly not mine. You believe that, and that's okay, but it begs the question of where THAT intelligence came from.

Whatever created DNA would have to be much more complex than DNA itself, and thus by your argument also need to be a result of intelligence. But then where did THAT intelligence come from? Eventually you're going to get to a point where the designer is irreducibly complex, with no origin. So a being like that just happens to exist RANDOMLY and BLINDLY with no cause.

That makes your DNA argument look like nothing in comparison. So it's a big deal that we can't fully explain the exact origins of DNA functionality from RNA. But you can somehow explain an exponentially more complex being arising out of completely nothing? Now THAT I'd LOVE to see. You claim we don't have answers, but your answer is a complete guess and it only causes more questions. I just admit I do not know. Fighting against science is futile. Let it do it's thing, we'll eventually figure it out.

The way Darwinist debate is, they make an ASININE statement and then they ask you to prove the ASININE statement. For instance, I will say, there has to be an intelligent mind that encodes sequences with meaning and also makes the machinary to decode the information.

This is an unremarkable statement. 99.99% of the time, this is just an obvious truth when you see a system that can encode information in a sequence and also make the machinary to decode this information.

Our inability to explain something we haven't yet figured out in science is NOT evidence of your magical god idea. You guys have been doing this for centuries.

Originally it was bad weather, rain, thunder, lightning, success of growing crops, wind, clouds, etc was all attributed to god. The creation of earth, the other planets, the moon, the stars, anything unknown. As new discoveries are made over the years, unknowns become knowns. Consequently, the gap you are forcing god into gets smaller and smaller. This intelligent designer used to control everything. Now it's gotten to the point where he may have started the big bang or may have created DNA.

It is illogical to squeeze god into gaps in knowledge that we can't fully explain yet. That has been your strategy since 2000 BC and it's still going on today. In a few hundred years, we could possibly grow DNA in a lab from RNA and demonstrate the entire abiogenesis process from amino acids to complex self replicating DNA. We are not at the pinnacle of science yet, not by a long shot.

I don't try to push abiogenesis or materialism on people as fact, but with your intelligent design concept you try to shove it in our face as the only possibility for an unknown when that's far from the case. You are welcome to believe that if it gives you comfort, but please note that it is just your belief here. It just seems like you have a major obsession with getting your opinion validated in this thread.

When it comes to evolution, we're supposed to abandon all logic and say nature did it even though this is impossible. Darwinist then say, PROVE NATURE CAN'T DO THIS.

Huh? I posted the evidence for you in the last post, but as I predicted you completely ignored it. If evolution is impossible, EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE I POSTED. I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you prove SOMETHING that supports your argument. Asking questions and making conclusions based on conjecture doesn't cut it.

edit on 4 19 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:36 AM
"The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent" Design

Yes, post a controversial concept and even Humans can produce interest - And what a production this post has turned out to be - A smorgasbord of science, religion, ethics and nit picking brains - I'm sure if there really is a creator god, he must be
having fun with this post - But I don't know what a 'creator god' is - probably a reflection of Man's desire for meaning - didn't
work did it? - Like science today and what you call Evolution - It can't give you meaning can it

And isn't that the similarity of both Evolution and Intelligent Design? - they lack both purpose and meaning.

Why Evoulution - what for - what purpose - evolving to what

And why Intelligent Design - for what purpose - according to who or what's design - whose intelligence

Well let a hypothetical alien from another dimension try to show it to you - How we see it.

The universe you exist in - your existent state - has little to do with a religion god or pure random chance - The universe you exist in, that you are part of, is part of an absolute consciousness - that always was and always will be - It is the mind of all that ever was and all that ever will be - And it
has always existed.

And this existent state never became intelligent - It is, and always was intelligent.

Most of you will not accept this - this is Human nature, to question everything, to dispute everything - And the intelligence that is the matrix of
the universe and all that exists understands this and allows, and in a way creates antithetical intelligences so it can better understand itself.

Intelligence must always question itself - this is part of the nature of intelligence.

“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

"I Am Existence - I Exist because without me nothing can exist - And nothing can not Exist"
-UniversalAlien [aka: AlienView]

edit on 20-4-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 07:57 AM
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Great, let me know when they're on the cusp of being able to completely redesign the human brain.

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:27 PM
a reply to: Barcs

Basically you said, evolution is false but I'm going to believe it anyway. Which is what I've been saying. It's the Primary Axiom or the blind belief in evolution without intelligent agency. You said:

So it's a big deal that we can't fully explain the exact origins of DNA functionality from RNA.

That's the ballgame. That's my point and your longwinded posts where you obfuscate around this are meaningles. This is why I asked these questions for 4-5 posts and you haven't even attempted to respond. This is because it's impssible for nature to do these things. Nature can give you order like a snowflake but that snowflake isn't encoded with information on how to make other snowflakes or information on how to make the machinary to build other snowflakes.

Tell me, what mutation created the sequence TATAAA and gave this sequence the ability to direct the transcription factors to the site of the genes to be read and the direction of these gene sequences.

Tell me, what mutation created the sequence GGCCAATCT and gave this sequence the ability to signal the binding site for the RNA transcription factor.

There's a reason why you dodge these question and why every Darwinist I've debated dodges these questions, it's because this is impossible for evolution without intelligent agency.

You then said this:

But you can somehow explain an exponentially more complex being arising out of completely nothing?

Now you're trying to debate things I never said. This is another faulty tactic employed by Darwinists. Where did I say a more complex being arised COMPLETELY out of nothing? LOL, I emphasize COMPLETELY because it simply shows how far you're stretching this lie to try to make a point against an argument that I never made.

So first, quote me where I made this claim. Secondly, why does this intelligence have to ARISE. Another claim you make that I'm sure you will not back.

This organizing principle or order has been seen by many Scientist including Einstein, Planck and Heisenberg. Three men who tower in Science.


Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.


All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.


“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

So there's no reason for this intelligent Mind to arise. I never made that claim.
edit on 20-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:59 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

Tell me, what mutation created the sequence TATAAA and gave this sequence the ability to direct the transcription factors to the site of the genes to be read and the direction of these gene sequences. Tell me, what mutation created the sequence GGCCAATCT and gave this sequence the ability to signal the binding site for the RNA transcription factor.

Highly conserved sequences are NOT formed by mutation. They do not have precursors nor do they need mutations to function. The sequence is carried over in cross-speciation faithfully with no change. Any mutation that may occur in a highly conserved sequence generally does not support a life form - i.e. it does not support life.

The role of highly conserved sequences is stability of function.

So your question is really a moot point. There was no mutation and no functional precursor.

End of message.

top topics

<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in