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: 60
57
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Evolutionist originally came from the term evolutionism, which is more like social Darwinism. It is not the same thing as the theory of evolution. Creationists use the term today to attack evolution and pretend that it's a belief rather than a science. It's the typical dishonesty we expect, just like how creationists have hijacked the word Darwinist as well, something that also hasn't been a valid term since the 1800s. It's just downright hilarious how creationists keep using these outdated terms to attack modern science. Maybe one day, they will address the scientific evidence, but thus far it has NEVER happened in this section. Every time evidence is posted, it is ignored or blindly dismissed with no explanation. You guys offer nothing but lies and quote mines. I'm not arguing that these terms are not real. They are, but the meaning has been changed by creationists over the years to pretend science is faith based. Sad that they are even in the dictionary, tbh. I think we should start changing the meaning of creationist terminology from thousands of years ago and use it to attack modern religion.
edit on 5 23 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I am ridiculing the fact you and your kind seem to think that those who do science can pick and choose what is a theory. Here is a hint. They can not. So yes I am ridiculing the use of Darwinist and evolutionist. It is a sign of poor education.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

What I said is:

"So is Intelligent Design a science? NO - it is a methodological and philosophical way of observation.
- A way to observe science."


And contrary to the old saying that if you gave enough monkeys enough typewriters they would eventually be able to type
out the Encyclopedia Britannica.
False: Monkeys do not possess the intelligence to see the design of the concepts and
would not be able to type one page of an encyclopedia.

Same could be said for some Humans who do not have the intelligence to see
the inherent design patterns in their own science.

For example Evolution - an intelligent design pattern observed by science



When religion fears science it is dead - And when science fears intelligence it too is dead.








"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"
edit on 23-5-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Phantom423

What I said is:

"So is Intelligent Design a science? NO - it is a methodological and philosophical way of observation.
- A way to observe science."


it doesnt observe science, it exploits it.

but is it superior to the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis? this is in fact the question. and you have failed to answer it. actually, i take that back. you have answered plenty in your inability to either refute evolution or demonstrate intelligent design as a viable alternative. you and everyone else has failed to do this, and thats what the whole thread has been about - confirming the "primary axiom". so far, the primary axiom isnt an axiom at all. its an opinion. on a conspiracy forum. defended by a bunch of other opinions on said conspiracy forum. if thats what you call a methodological and philosophical way of observation. criticizing science when you dont understand how science works, then hijacking science to confirm what science actually refutes. i feel like this has happened before...has it happened before?

Evolution debate

Another evolution debate

ANOTHER evolution debate

Yet another evolution debate

Have we been here before?

Wait, again? Seriously?

....*sigh*

maybe its just me.

edit on 23-5-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles

" The debut at #7 on the New York Times best seller list last July of Stephen Meyer’s new book Darwin’s Doubt is evidence that the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) continues to gain momentum. Since critics often misrepresent ID, and paint ID advocates as a fanatical fringe group, it is important to understand what intelligent design is, and what it is not.

Until Charles Darwin, almost everyone everywhere believed in some form of intelligent design (the majority still do): not just Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but almost every tribesman in every remote corner of the world drew the obvious conclusion from observing animals and plants that there must have been a mind behind the creation of living things. Darwin thought he could explain all of this apparent design through natural selection of random variations. In spite of the fact that there is no direct evidence that natural selection can explain anything other than very minor adaptations, his theory has gained widespread popularity in the scientific world, simply because no one can come up with a more plausible theory to explain evolution, other than intelligent design, which is dismissed by most scientists as “unscientific.”

But, in recent years, as scientific research has continually revealed the astonishing dimensions of the complexity of life, especially at the microscopic level, support for Darwin’s implausible theory has continued to weaken, and since the publication in 1996 of Darwin’s Black Box by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, a growing minority of scientists have concluded, with Behe, that there is no possible explanation for the complexity of life other than intelligent design."


See whole article here:
humanevents.com...


Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution

"Actually, what Congresswoman Bachmann said was that “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.” (Bachmann-Wetterling-Binkowski candidates’ debate. October 7, 2006. Voter’s Choice Candidate Forum, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of the St. Cloud Area, the St. Cloud Times and the St. Cloud Women of Today. Apollo High School, St. Cloud, MN.) Well, Zack, I’ve managed to track down seven Nobel Laureate scientists who espoused some version of Intelligent Design when discussing the origin and/or development of life on Earth. They’re the subject of this post. (I’ve also identified twenty-one more Nobel Laureate scientists whose views on the origin and nature of the human mind put them at odds with Darwinism, and I’ll talk about them in my fourth post.) Zack, you’ll be intrigued to learn that the first Nobel Laureate scientist on my list today is still alive, and as far as I can tell, he’s an atheist!"

See whole article here:
escent.com/intelligent-design/seven-nobel-laureates-in-science-who-either-supported-intelligent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/

Einstein Said That All Serious Scientists Believe In Intelligent Design

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

– Albert Einstein


See whole article here:
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

Scientists who support intelligent design

""One of the more frequent questions people ask about intelligent design is whether any scientists actually support ID theory. There are many notable biologists, biochemists, physicists, and astronomers who support intelligent design, and their work continues to develop the young scientific theory. Here are just a few of them: Michael Behe has developed the argument for design from biochemistry and has published over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals. Ralph Seelke is a microbiologist at University of Wisconsin, Superior, who has researched Dr. Behe's ideas in the laboratory, using mutant bacteria. Dr. Seelke explained how his lab work focuses on what evolution really can do in this intriguing podcast last year. Scott Minnich is a microbiologist at University of Idaho who credits the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a German geneticist who suggests that ID provides fruitful hints for giraffe research. The argument for design isn't limited to biology and biochemistry; astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez has opened a new frontier for the ID paradigm with his arguments from cosmology. Dr. Gonzalez is a world-renowned astrobiologist and assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University. He has written nearly 70 refereed papers and is the co-discoverer of the Galactic Habitable Zone, which led to a cover story he co-authored in Scientific American and feature stories on Dr. Gonzalez in Science and Nature. These eminent scientists and scholars see merit in intelligent design theory. As they lead the way to scientific discovery, let's hope their work is unimpeded by politically motivated science-stoppers."

See whole aritcle here:
www.evolutionnews.org...


But you see heretics you have sinned - sinned against the the new church of scientific rationalism which states - "if it doesn't
fit some scientific category - it doesn't exist.

How alike they are with the Church of old which said if it disagrees with doctrine it is wrong, heresy, and punishable by death.

And how close did Galileo come to being burned at the stake for heresy when he said the Earth revolved arooud the Sun.

Dealing with these blockheads, whether it be religion or science can be sickening - as well as counterproductive to
advancing Human intelligence - something your species still needs more of.




Want disclosure Humans? Want to know if aliens exist? Show us first you can think outside of the box - Outside of your
tiny universe - And think of the larger one that surrounds it - Then and only then......








universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Out of curiosity can you quote a peer reviewed journal on these things?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Why quote peer revieved science journals when you can quote the Universal Space Alien People Association.
edit on 23-5-2016 by Joecanada11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

Well then I quote my Gods, and they say:

Post the papers or kiss my axe.... well the last word might be axe?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Are you claiming to be an extraterrestrial life form?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Notice at the bottom of his post he stated "something your species needs more of". We may have an alien in our midst.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

I saw that. He needs to prove that too. So a DNA test is in order, otherwise the smell I am getting is distinctly reminiscent of a diary farm pasture.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: ATHEISTS TO THE RESCUE

"During the 1980s, two books” Evolution: a Theory in Crisis , by Michael Denton, and The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories , by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen”unwittingly gave rise to the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. Books by scientists”Michael Denton, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and others”pointed out various deficiencies in the theory of evolution: millions of gaps in the asserted “tree of evolution,” the impossibility of producing certain types of “irreducible complexity” by chance interactions, the failure of algorithms used by evolutionists to explain certain evolutionary developments, etc."



Surprisingly, two recent books by atheist philosophers of science have joined with ID theorists in the criticism of neo-Darwinism. J erry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, in What Darwin Got Wrong come at neo-Darwinism from a number of directions. Initially, they draw a comparison with B.F. Skinner’s psychological theory of “operant conditioning,” which attempted to explain changes in human behavior by patterns of stimulus and response. Limitations of that theory have eventually been revealed: it did not take into account internal mechanisms in organisms subjected to external stimuli; and the intention of researchers or subjects affected the results of experiments. Skinner’s behaviorism can be corrected by taking these aspects into account. But no such correction is possible in neo-Darwinism, which has no interest in “the internal organization of creatures . . . (genotypic and ontogenetic structures)” and recognizes no “intentions” in evolutionary processes. The remaining chapters of their book add qualifications that almost seem like ID arguments: Fibonacci patterns, in which each term is equal to the sum of the two preceding ones, seem to be prior to all evolutionary developments; scaling factors in organisms are multiples of a quarter, not of a third, according to the “one-quarter power law”; computational analysis of nervous systems of organisms show that their “connection economies” are perfect; “cost versus speed” analyses of the respiratory patterns of the song of canaries show the most efficient use of energy; tests of the ratio of foraging honeybees to those staying in the hives show perfect solutions in all situations. There is perfection everywhere. They also offer an example of a type of wasp whose patterns of feeding her young competes with ID theorist Michael Behe’s notion of “irreducible complexity.”


"The reason given for the “non-scientific” nature of ID was that science had to be restricted to a naturalist methodology, prohibiting any approach or evidence which could bring in the supernatural. Monton considers such a restriction as completely arbitrary, and even offers some thought experiments showing how a supernatural agent could be detected through scientific methods. He mentions with approval some examples of two conversions of atheists to theism, on the basis of scientific evidence: The physicist, Fred Hoyle, whose atheism was “shaken” when he came to the conclusion in 1982 that some “superintellect” had “monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology”; and the famous philosopher, Anthony Flew, who in 2004 announced that he could no longer remain an atheist, largely because of his study of “fine-tuning” arguments in physics and the resistance of DNA evidence to any naturalistic explanation."



Mouton’s insistence that we should search for the truth, and not restrict our search to naturalistic scientific methods, is refreshing. And the arguments of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, although they hold no brief for ID theory, in their criticism of “natural selection,” unintentionally bring out examples that certainly sound like, well, design.


See whole aritcle here:
www.firstthings.com...



Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design?


Honest truth seekers and agenda-driven atheists rarely pose the same questions, but both ask whether any nonreligious scientists and scholars challenge neo-Darwinism and/or support intelligent design (ID). A logical response explains that an argument holds merit apart from the religious (or nonreligious) beliefs of the person arguing. Darwinism may be flawed regardless of whether its critics are religious. Rejecting an argument because of the personal religious beliefs of the arguer commits the genetic fallacy. Nonetheless, many find it rhetorically persuasive to learn about atheists and agnostics who challenge materialistic accounts of origins. These nonreligious scientists and scholars who doubt modern Darwinian theory include former U.S. National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis, medical professor Raymond Tallis, Rutgers cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, New York University philosopher and legal scholar Thomas Nagel, and Princeton-trained mathematician David Berlinski—all of whom have publicly challenged neo-Darwinism and/or sympathized with ID. Significantly, many of these scholars have faced harsh reactions from fellow nonbelievers. Margulis observes that those who attack Darwin become “persona non grata,” and Fodor has faced pressure to suppress his doubts “in public.” This demonstrates academic intolerance toward Darwin-skeptics, and leads one to wonder how many other atheists would challenge Darwinism if they had the academic freedom to do so.


See whole article here:
www.equip.org...





And for the Human who asked me if I was an Alien? - Apparently anyone who believes in both Evolution and
Intelligent Design, and sees no contradiction between them, must be an Alien !









"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Hey, I've been saying from the beginning that it very easily could be both evolution and creation, which is why I don't understand the creationist battle against it. They don't have to be a contradiction as the title of thread suggests.

But the fact remains, that no objective evidence has been found yet to suggest creation. If you plan to stick with opinion polls, propaganda sites and other unproven quoted opinions and rhetoric, rather than scientific evidence and studies, you are not bringing anything to the table in this discussion. Where are the peer reviewed papers? Anything substantial at all?


edit on 5 24 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



Hey, I've been saying from the beginning that it very easily could be both evolution and creation, which is why I don't understand the creationist battle against it. They don't have to be a contradiction as the title of thread suggests.



Let me help you understand why they battle against it..

ID was made up to get around the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the US Supreme Court which determined that creation science/ID was actually creationism in disguise. The book, Of Pandas and People is clear evidence of this. After the court's decision the term "creationists" was replaced by "design proponents" but they made an error in the text. They ended up with "cdesign proponentsists" in one place. That was a clear giveaway that "creationists" and "design proponents" are one in the same.

In light of this and the Wedge Document shows they want to push theism on us.

The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."


There is no scientific merit in ID. It is just one more dishonest attempt to fool school boards and other people who don't know any better.

Edit: It's more than an attempt, creationism has infiltrated thousands of public school across the country and it's ill effects have impacted education. Kids that have been force fed this nonsense have the lowest academic scores in the country and if they make it to college they find out they have been deceived and are at a major disadvantage compared with their peers. And all this on our tax dollars.
www.slate.com...[editb y]edit on fTuesday162556f250206 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: AlienView

Hey, I've been saying from the beginning that it very easily could be both evolution and creation, which is why I don't understand the creationist battle against it. They don't have to be a contradiction as the title of thread suggests.

But the fact remains, that no objective evidence has been found yet to suggest creation. If you plan to stick with opinion polls, propaganda sites and other unproven quoted opinions and rhetoric, rather than scientific evidence and studies, you are not bringing anything to the table in this discussion. Where are the peer reviewed papers? Anything substantial at all?



The theory of everything may suggest an intelligent element. Let's say we follow that hypothesis to the very end. Let's say we do find some form of sentient being. What then? Do we submit ourselves to it en masse? What if it turns out to be Klingons? Or maybe the Q (let us hope not). Once it is rung, that bell cannot be unrung. Are we prepared to handle whatever answers the door?



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: AlienView

Hey, I've been saying from the beginning that it very easily could be both evolution and creation, which is why I don't understand the creationist battle against it. They don't have to be a contradiction as the title of thread suggests.

But the fact remains, that no objective evidence has been found yet to suggest creation. If you plan to stick with opinion polls, propaganda sites and other unproven quoted opinions and rhetoric, rather than scientific evidence and studies, you are not bringing anything to the table in this discussion. Where are the peer reviewed papers? Anything substantial at all?


The theory of everything may suggest an intelligent element. Let's say we follow that hypothesis to the very end. Let's say we do find some form of sentient being. What then? Do we submit ourselves to it en masse? What if it turns out to be Klingons? Or maybe the Q (let us hope not). Once it is rung, that bell cannot be unrung. Are we prepared to handle whatever answers the door?


Now you are making an interesting and good point - You see for a long time I have been an alien theorist posing
hypothetical scenarios having to do with hypothetical aliens - none of which have been proven to exists - And yet shows
like 'Ancient Aliens' remain popular because the theories fill in the gaps by giving explanations of events that indicate
there 'might be' influences from an advanced species - Of course like ID it is not really science, more like science fiction - Of course ID, as you would say, is not truly science either - Again I'll say it belongs more in the philosophy of sciecne category as it attempts to see meaning in what has happened, is happening, and might happen in the future - The science of evolution on the other hand has a kind of cold meaningless to it - it proposes no ultimate direction, no intrinsic meaning - So fittest can survive? Survive for what purpose? Survive for what meaning to survive? With Evolution you really can't search for meaning - With ID you might try
- You can ask why the complexity of life and postulate a future

Fits in with my new religion 'ScienceFictionalism' [religion only in the sense that it requires a faith - a faith in the future]. With ID I might propose models for the future - Evolution basically tracks the past. And when they do these breeding experiments, say to create a new breed of dog, or if you believe in aliens, to create a new type of Human - What do you think is more important the Evolution to date? - Or an Intelligent Design for the future? - Both are probably important. !

And I don't buy creationist theology in a religious sense- But I can still stay inside the boundaries of science by saying I can see a process of creation going on - Nature continues to create many varieties of life - And some continue to evolve - ID asks why and where to. prejudicial from a Human viewpoint - - Yes - But not without meaning - Science, fact or not, still needs meaning. Science leads to engineers of things - And should also lead to engineers of the future of science itself and
- of life itself.



You Humans aren't so bad after all - maybe we will continue to try to expand your horizons







"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...
edit on 25-5-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

The problem is, many people WANT that meaning so badly that they will force the proverbial square peg in the round hole. What if there is no meaning? What if none of it means a lick? People love to act like there MUST be meaning, but in reality that's just a comforting guess. Humans have to be willing to accept the possibility that there is no meaning to any of this, otherwise they set themselves up for a big possible let down. Maybe there is no why.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Science isn't about your insecurities. Science is not a summer camp counselor. If you are looking for something to make you feel better about yourself, then be better. It's not on science to do that. In fact, science will tell you that ultimately this entire planet is pointless. Well, that certainly leaves a lot of possibilities on the table. Maybe there won't be a big shiny plaque to tell the Klingons we were here, but that doesnt mean we can't enjoy the ride to our infinitesimal ends.
edit on 25-5-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
How can you possibly say science is not about meaning
EVERYTHING that happens in science has a meaning.

When you mix an acid and a base and they react they react for specific and understandable reasons, atoms, molecules react
for very detectable and often understandable meaning - SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT MEANING.

The fact that the meanings in science are usually precise and calculable is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is the right for intelligent people to infer greater meanings beyond the microcosm of specific events.

Is there a greater meaning


How limited would science be if we can not attempt to philosophize on the macrocosm that might be inferred by the microcom of the events observed and calculated by science


Wise up Human - it's a big Universe out there




"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Come no neighbour, we are waiting on proof you are not a fellow hominid
Stop with the "wise up human" shenanigans.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
57
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join