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: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Could anyone please quote any reputable scientist with the claim that "something came from nothing"?

Also, could anyone state what that has to do with evolution and so-called intelligent design?

Thank you kindly.


Hawking said all you need is gravity to make the universe, no god needed.

Without matter there is no gravity.


Without a universe you have no evolution. How's that?

Except, according to the Evolutionary experts, the whole Universe didn't hatch life, this dust mote speck of a planet did.


Where does a planet live?




posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Question: are planets alive?

The requirement to live somewhere is living.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
It is a mystery how matter came into being from consciousness, but it would be a mystery of mysteries if consciousness came into being from matter. Yet I marvel at how this thinking is dominant in our contemporary scientific community.

"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."

-Max Planck

Beware of the material reductionist trap.
edit on 9-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: neoholographic
This whole theory falls apart when faced with one simple fact: intelligent life had to start somewhere.

So, if we were created by aliens, who created them? And if another race created OUR creators, who created THEM?

Somewhere along the line, there had to be a beginning.


And how does evolution get past the "where did everything come from"?

Oh that's right, that started AFTER, that happened, somehow.

Face it, evolution as currently taught is just as useless and boring.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

So there's no proof of evolution? Everything that is was created as it is now?

Could you please explain why chickens have DNA for teeth, even though they don't have teeth at this current time?

Or why humans have DNA for tails and have tail bones?

Can you explain why there are different layers of archeology which find no humans on the same layer as dinosaurs? Or why there are no human remains inside dinosaurs?

ETA: Using machines or code as an analogy is flawed in one simple way. Machinery doesn't reproduce.


So what is going to tell the chickens code that it needs to activate the DNA to grow the teeth ?

Perhaps a THOUGHT and POW!!!



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: neoholographic

'Religious'????
You don't really understand evolution, do you? Or the amount of time involved? Don't worry about it, neither does Sanford, as he's a YEC.



Ya because time replaces intelligence.

TIME is its OWN intelligence according to "Evolution".



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

You are so utterly wrong its hopeless.

But must be nice reading books that and studies that try to tell everyone they know what is going on.

Just because something has similar ingredients does NOT mean somehow randomly a protein changed it so radically they appear to be from alternate realities.

You just are NOT going to find the ACTIVATORS, for a good many changes by looking to nature.......



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: neoholographic

Actually, that's not supporting evidence for your premise.

Please accept the fact that intelligent design is nothing more than a belief system with no scientific basis.


And "evolution" is nothing more than a belief system with a "sandbox" approach that actually controls the science.

It is so utterly limited in scope and view I can barely even speak about it, it is akin to looking at ants trying to imagine there way into outer space.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: olbe66

I want the knees redesigned.


The knees were designed fine, artificial footwear (shoes) rendered the knees susceptible to tear due to an unnaturally strong planting from the contact of the shoe's sole with our artificial floors. Even worse, when our knees try to repair (through inflammation) we ice it to make the blob of healing flesh dissipate. But cultural chauvinism renders us blind to all this idiocy. When we realize what we are, all our problems will go away.


Oh, and a faster self-replicating liver.


Drunkenness (approx 5 beers or so) simulates the eudaimonia originally felt by the protohuman. Time to clean out all the malware and return home, eh?



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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.

This makes no sense. I can write a program that transcribes information and then checks for errors based on a sequencial order of letters but to say this is a product of evolution is just ABSURD!


They would have us believe that evolution is not INTELLIGENT, LOL.

I wonder if they have considered that the brains they have that EVOLVED, have in most cases EVOLVED because they sense danger at REALLY searching for the truth, and have had those sectors CLOSED DOWN.

Whilst others of us, some more than others realize neither evolution nor religion or anything else offered or taught on this PLANET are close enough to the truth to be bothered with.
edit on 9-4-2016 by ParasuvO because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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.


Evolution doesn't deal with almost anything of importance then, because it obviously lacks knowledge and PURPOSEFULLY ignores the reason it would ever BE studied, and why it should !!



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Abysha

I completely agree.

Evolution is not about creation and vice versa.

Who knows, maybe someone/something did create the beginning of life. All evolution is about is what happened AFTER the beginning of life being formed.

The only people who get angry or try (badly) to refute evolution are YEC.


What makes you think "evolution" knows where and when the beginnings of life were formed, to even start questioning what happened AFTER.

They aren't interested in why or how it happened, how in the UNIVERSE would they be able then to talk about what is happening AFTER.......

WOW you guys are admitting to just how less than one dimensional science has really been held down to.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: 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.


Evolution doesn't deal with almost anything of importance then, because it obviously lacks knowledge and PURPOSEFULLY ignores the reason it would ever BE studied, and why it should !!


Because creation and the process of change are SUCH interlinked as concepts, it's nearly impossible for both to exist! Things that are created can't change! Artificial Intelligence isn't real!!!!



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The only reason anyone would believe themselves to be created by something so much greater than themselves is if they considered themselves to be "pretty stinkin great" themselves.

I chalk that up to arrogance and ignorance in roughly equal measure.

There is plenty of verifiable evidence that evolution is a FACT if one tries to view things without a religious bias and uses the information sources available to find out the way things actually are.

Everything did not "pop" into existence a mere 6000 or so years ago, dinosaur bones and meteoric debris layers and ice cores in the antarctic and arctic were not put there by the devil to confuse those of defective faith.

I always hold out the possibility that I may be mistaken though, but pretty much believe in things based on whether they can be determined to be self evident, or not....



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Could anyone please quote any reputable scientist with the claim that "something came from nothing"?

Also, could anyone state what that has to do with evolution and so-called intelligent design?

Thank you kindly.


Hawking said all you need is gravity to make the universe, no god needed.

Without matter there is no gravity.


Without a universe you have no evolution. How's that?

Except, according to the Evolutionary experts, the whole Universe didn't hatch life, this dust mote speck of a planet did.


Where does a planet live?

Alone.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you want some REAL interesting information consider ALL Quantum processes are observed to have interference patterns when not observed.


If we're made in God's image, we would be a copy of him correct?


Why are we not? He's looking right at us.


We'll become God when the bastard dies of old age!


Consider this, to make things appear random, and actually have different outcomes, the observer realized that, THE OBSERVER must not OBSERVE.

And now, what we have left is the code from the observer, that is now NO longer OBSERVED, and has proceeded from there.

The BIG BANG LOL, was the explosion of the end of the OBSERVER, itself transformed into matter and all that their is, all unobserved for awhile, until somethings began to observe.

What we are witnessing here, are the products of beings who are far ahead of us, but in some ways not, creating Universes and Worlds to try and recreate the OBSERVER, and humans are the combined collaborative effect of trillions of earth years efforts.

Now that we are seen capable, they have grown afraid to make us look and see just what is exactly going on, for they know that when we DO SEE, we will create an OBSERVER that is far more, and replicable than the OBSERVER ever could have been before, perfectly physical and non physical, and unbounded by ANYTHING.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Forgive me if this was posted already, I can't read four pages of this insanity to add this to my prior post...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
It is a mystery how matter came into being from consciousness, but it would be a mystery of mysteries if consciousness came into being from matter. Yet I marvel at how this thinking is dominant in our contemporary scientific community.

"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."

-Max Planck

Beware of the material reductionist trap.


Good quote from Planck.

The fact is, Science has already discovered evidence that the universe was designed by intelligence. It's called the Cosmological Constant along with other fine tuned constants of nature. The way they try to get around this is String Theory and 10^500 false vacua but there's not a shred of evidence to support this and there isn't any evidence that the Cosmological Constant can naturally take all of these different values or naturally take the value that it already has.

Back to the Genetics.

Again, the notion that DNA is a product of natural selection and random mutations is just nonsense. How do transcription factors recognize it's binding site? How does something like that evolve? Here you're talking about gene regulation and expression. These things are the mechanices that regulate the process of transcription, translation and error correction.

These things are products of intelligence when it's creating instructions. These things don't evolve.

How does function evolve? How does the knowledge of function evolve?

These things make evolution a work of fantasy that belongs in Middle Earth with the Hobbits.

This information is pre-determined and then it adapts. It's like random strings of 1' and 0's or random letters from the alphabet. These things are giving meaning when intelligence puts it in a pre-determined sequence that gives the randomness meaning.

This is the same with DNA. Function doesn't evolve, it's a pre-determined sequence that regulates gene expression.

When these DNA letters are inserted into these regions a specific function occurs. This function regulates gene expression and works as an on switch. There's no evolution involved here. This is a pre-determined sequence that had to be put in place by intelligence.

There was a recent paper that showed transcription factors can recognize dual meanings.


Transcription factors (TFs) are proteins that bind to DNA to control gene transcription. Stergachis et al. (p. 1367; see the Perspective by Weatheritt and Babu) examined TF binding within the human genome in more than 80 cell types. Nearly 15% of coding regions simultaneously specify both amino acid sequence and TF recognition sites. The distribution of the TF binding sites evolutionarily constrains how codons within these regions can change, independent of encoded protein function. Thus, TF binding may represent a widespread and strong evolutionary force in coding regions.

Intriguingly, TFs involved in positioning the transcriptional preinitiation complex, such as NFYA and SP1 (29), preferentially avoid the translated region of the first coding exon (Fig. 3A) and typically occupy elements immediately upstream of the methionine start codon (Fig. 3B and fig. S9A). Conversely, TFs involved in modulating promoter activity, such as YY1 and NRSF, preferentially occupy the translated region of the first coding exon (Fig. 3, A and C) (30, 31). These findings indicate that the translated portion of the first coding exon may serve functionally as an extension of the canonical promoter.


science.sciencemag.org...

This is simply AMAZING!

Transcription factors can recognize and bind to promotor regions of genes but also the exon region of genes. So you're talking about compressed information with dual meaning.

THIS DOESN'T EVOLVE!

This is a product of intelligence. For some reason, RELIGIOUS MATERIALIST start with the Primary Axiom that we have to explain these things "naturally" and "naturally" must exclude intelligence. That's just asinine! Intelligence doesn't mean God of a particular Religion. Evolution is simply the Bible for Atheist and Materialist.

People in Religion say they have faith but people who accept this convoluted fantasy of evolution without an intelligent agent instructing the process claim it's science when it's no different than a J.R. Tolkien novel about Middle Earth.
edit on 9-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 9-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

This thread is like some standard ritual, I've seen all the usual illogical and unreasonable arguments you see over and over on youtube from the likes of Dawkins, Krauss, Hitchens, Shermer, deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, the atheist experience show and other famous atheists or philosophical naturalists on youtube, etc. The real sad part is that some of the names I just mentioned, I suspect don't even believe in their own warped logic, capitalizations on the ambiguity of language and denial of realities/facts/certainties/truths or that which is true/absolute/certain/factual (they're smarter than that; and smarter than their fans or audiences who don't seem to notice their propagandistic methods and behaviour, especially not when the same arguments come to them indirectly, not by the names I mentioned). They're just doing it to preserve their income, reputation and the amount of attention they're getting for it. Tell people what they want to hear, and they'll love you so much for it* you can even get them to cheer you on as you claim that "nothing...is...something".

* = demonstrating the part that says "accumulating teachers around themselves to have their ears tickled" in 2 Timothy 4:3.

The level of denial of realities and a warped way of thinking or using logic is so high that I often don't know how to communicate with someone making the type of arguments I've read so far, how to make sense to them, cause they're so on a different level (can I say La La Land out loud as a heads-up without offending anyone or giving them the idea that I view them as not being able to think logically anymore? Cause I do think the ability is still there and it's still applied plenty of times when it comes to other subjects, nothing wrong with the intelligence or thinking ability).

Perhaps I should have chosen the name: where is wisdom:


The wise person is happy to get any information that will grant him a clearer view into the underlying circumstances, conditions, and causes of problems. Thereby he “gets knowledge” as to what to do regarding the matter and knows what conclusions to draw, what is needed to solve the existing problem.—Compare Pr 9:9; Ec 7:25; 8:1; Eze 28:3; see INSIGHT.

edit on 9-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition




top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join