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: 61
57
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
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.



This isn't really true. Science is about discovery and learning how things work. Giving things a "meaning" or "purpose" is completely subjective. Science deals with the objective. It's about the HOW, not the philosophical WHY. What you just said doesn't give a meaning or purpose to those things. It shows us how they function and interact with the environment.

You are comparing 2 different things when you talking about meaning in philosophy vs meaning in science. They aren't on equal grounds.


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


Science is limited to evidence and it always has been. Philosophy is basically educated guessing. You can't mix the 2 together, although philosophy can be good for coming up with new ideas and hypotheses. Philosophy becomes science when the ideas get confirmed and demonstrated.




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

That's a rather good explanation of the distinction.
Even though you harbor a somewhat romanticized view of the process...

I would have to add that science isn't just about the discovery and evidence, but also just as important - how that evidence is interpreted. There is usually more than one way to look at things, and even test things. Then it becomes a consensus model, which makes me sometimes question the veracity of certain scientifically "established" claims. Just because there can be a majority of scientists that agree on a perspective doesn't make it the correct one. But try and offer a different view of the evidence and one will often be ostracised for not towing the company line so to speak...


One more thought to add : science would not be what it is today had it not been for scientists who challenged the consensus view of the world.
edit on 26-5-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

That's a rather good explanation of the distinction.
Even though you harbor a somewhat romanticized view of the process...

I would have to add that science isn't just about the discovery and evidence, but also just as important - how that evidence is interpreted. There is usually more than one way to look at things, and even test things. Then it becomes a consensus model, which makes me sometimes question the veracity of certain scientifically "established" claims. Just because there can be a majority of scientists that agree on a perspective doesn't make it the correct one. But try and offer a different view of the evidence and one will often be ostracised for not towing the company line so to speak...


One more thought to add : science would not be what it is today had it not been for scientists who challenged the consensus view of the world.


...challenged the consensus view of the world for good reason. simply offering a challenge isnt enough. there must be a solid basis for the challenge. intelligent design hypothesis has thus far repeatedly failed to provide this basis.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

100% agree with you..... I was just saying....

I wonder, though, if we'll ever be able to understand how intelligence and awareness can emerge from a passive chemical structure.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: TzarChasm

100% agree with you..... I was just saying....

I wonder, though, if we'll ever be able to understand how intelligence and awareness can emerge from a passive chemical structure.


i was just adding on to what you posted.


we are still investigating the nature of intelligence and awareness. it would be premature to declare anything except that the investigation is ongoing and anything conclusive will be announced in due time.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Of interest:

The Meaning of Science by Tim Lewens review – can scientific knowledge be objective?

"The physicist Richard Feynman once remarked that “philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds”. Some of his colleagues have not been so kind. When Stephen Hawking pronounced philosophy dead in 2011, it was only the fame of the coroner that made it news.

Good scientists, however, are willing to revise their theories on the basis of new data, and Tim Lewens’s wonderful addition to the excellent Pelican Introductions series, The Meaning of Science, is all the evidence any open-minded inquirer needs to demonstrate the worth of philosophy of science. Those who dismiss the subject usually misunderstand it. They think either that philosophy of science is an armchair pursuit – woolly metaphysics instead of hard physics – or they think the job of philosophy of science is to help train scientists do their job. Although some scientists have indeed been helped by doing some philosophy, that is not the litmus test of its value. What philosophy brings to science is an understanding of what it means, intellectually, practically, politically and ethically.

Lewens first turns his attention to what science is and what it tells us: does it describe the world as it really is, or does it merely provide useful models to help us to manipulate it? Does it make progress, or are the theories of any age destined to be shed one by one, like a snake’s skin? Is there a clear, rigorous “scientific method” or just an ad-hoc hodgepodge of various techniques?

Lewens discusses these issues with admirable clarity and even-handedness. He takes a sober look at issues of truth and progress, challenging both the naive and the cynical along the way. This measured approach is best exemplified in his explanation of why the scientific method is not as neat and robust as some popular versions of it suggest. While it is central to science that its theories are based on evidence and can be tested, there is a great deal of judgment required when deciding which experiments are critical or what evidence is decisive. There is no method you can simply follow that will determine these issues for you. Breakthroughs often occur because scientists are too bloody-minded to give up on their ideas in the face of unpromising results. As Lewens writes: “Sometimes scientists, like horses, progress best when their blinkers are on.......”


See whole article here:
www.theguardian.com...



Again, nothing that a Human mind perceives can be totally objective - And what the universe or existence might look like
without a mind perceiving it I have no idea - do you


Without some type of perspective [such as ID] we might assume that the world you live in is nothing more than fantasy


And the fantasies of Theists and the fantasies of Atheists are really two sides ot the same fantasy
- Which is why I like to see the world through a perspective that says it possess a quality of intelligence [ID]
edit on 27-5-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
Of interest:

The Meaning of Science by Tim Lewens review – can scientific knowledge be objective?

"The physicist Richard Feynman once remarked that “philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds”. Some of his colleagues have not been so kind. When Stephen Hawking pronounced philosophy dead in 2011, it was only the fame of the coroner that made it news.

Good scientists, however, are willing to revise their theories on the basis of new data, and Tim Lewens’s wonderful addition to the excellent Pelican Introductions series, The Meaning of Science, is all the evidence any open-minded inquirer needs to demonstrate the worth of philosophy of science. Those who dismiss the subject usually misunderstand it. They think either that philosophy of science is an armchair pursuit – woolly metaphysics instead of hard physics – or they think the job of philosophy of science is to help train scientists do their job. Although some scientists have indeed been helped by doing some philosophy, that is not the litmus test of its value. What philosophy brings to science is an understanding of what it means, intellectually, practically, politically and ethically.

Lewens first turns his attention to what science is and what it tells us: does it describe the world as it really is, or does it merely provide useful models to help us to manipulate it? Does it make progress, or are the theories of any age destined to be shed one by one, like a snake’s skin? Is there a clear, rigorous “scientific method” or just an ad-hoc hodgepodge of various techniques?

Lewens discusses these issues with admirable clarity and even-handedness. He takes a sober look at issues of truth and progress, challenging both the naive and the cynical along the way. This measured approach is best exemplified in his explanation of why the scientific method is not as neat and robust as some popular versions of it suggest. While it is central to science that its theories are based on evidence and can be tested, there is a great deal of judgment required when deciding which experiments are critical or what evidence is decisive. There is no method you can simply follow that will determine these issues for you. Breakthroughs often occur because scientists are too bloody-minded to give up on their ideas in the face of unpromising results. As Lewens writes: “Sometimes scientists, like horses, progress best when their blinkers are on.......”


See whole article here:
www.theguardian.com...



Again, nothing that a Human mind perceives can be totally objective - And what the universe or existence might look like
without a mind perceiving it I have no idea - do you


Without some type of perspective [such as ID] we might assume that the world you live in is nothing more than fantasy


And the fantasies of Theists and the fantasies of Atheists are really two sides ot the same fantasy
- Which is why I like to see the world through a perspective that says it possess a quality of intelligence [ID]


opinion acknowledged. scanning for evidence of intelligent design... data not found.
edit on 27-5-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

"REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality. In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place........."

See whold article here:
www.sciencedaily.com...

So Human you are an intelligent being - Are you not
Is your intelligent mind affecting the world you live in

Do you have a problem with this
Why
Why not create the world as you want it to be
Why not give it intelligence and
design - It's your world




Richard Strauss - Also Sprach Zarathustra / 2001 Space Odyssey opening theme










"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...
edit on 28-5-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

"REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality. In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place........."

See whold article here:
www.sciencedaily.com...

So Human you are an intelligent being - Are you not
Is your intelligent mind affecting the world you live in

Do you have a problem with this
Why
Why not create the world as you want it to be
Why not give it intelligence and
design - It's your world




Richard Strauss - Also Sprach Zarathustra / 2001 Space Odyssey opening theme










"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...


The same result can be produced with a machine doing the measuring - or "observing". Or think of it this way... when you flip a switch to turn on a light, how much control are you exerting? The same result can be achieved with a motion detector. No awareness necessary. But what does this have to do with evolution?
edit on 28-5-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Date: Sunday - June 5, 2016
Host: George Noory
Guests: Dr. Bo Kirkwood

"Family Practice physician Dr. Bo Kirkwood, who has had a lifelong interest in Creation Theory, joins George Noory on Sunday night. After learning the theory of Evolution in school, Kirkwood became fascinated with the Evolution vs. Creation debate and has studied the nuances of both sides of the argument. He frequently lectures on the topic."

Further Info here:
www.coasttocoastam.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView
Perhaps someone should give him a link to the thread "The Genesis Account and How it Refutes Creationism" for his study.

Before he starts contrasting young earth creationism with evolutionary philosophies and still get nowhere closer to the truth or correct view and explanations of reality (which is what I've heard him doing in my quick research into him, he's got video lessons on youtube, one of which is about "How Old is the Earth?" In which he promotes young earth creationism as well as expresses his belief in it).

A line from the description of his book "Unveiling the Da Vinci Code":

The true purposes of the Priory of Sion...are among several topics discussed.

Priory of Sion: wikipedia

The Priory of Sion myth has been exhaustively debunked by journalists and scholars as one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century.[7] Some skeptics have expressed concern that the proliferation and popularity of books, websites and films inspired by this hoax have contributed to the problem of conspiracy theories, pseudohistory and other confusions becoming more mainstream.

Of course with a bit of research I learned now that Kirkwood would probably agree on the above but still...to write a whole book about it and selling it is telling for me what some of his motivations are. It's not only telling people something important (cause you can do the same* as quickly as I just did it, free of charge). * = debunking the Priory of Sion hoax (or the Da Vinci Code fictional novel)

1 Timothy 6:3-5
edit on 4-6-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Of course, in final analysis, you who support Evolution are right - Survival of the fittest and the Machiavellian will to power that results rules all. Intelligent Design, even in a non religious sense is irrelevant - Evolution shows that power rules - the species that triumphs is the species that gains dominance - How it does this is irrelevant - 'Might Makes Right'


So all the 'conspiracy theories' so popular on forums such as this one have some, if not total, truth to them - Yet it makes no difference - Exposure of the truth will not stop it from happening - ATS has its hand out looking for money - 'They' [the power elite] don't have that problem - 'They' already have most of the 'real' money in the world and ostensibly control the rest.

So Evolutionists are you happy with your evolving world
- Enjoy it - while I barf -


And don't worry about Intelligent Design - In final analysis Man is is a very dumb and unintelligent species.

==============================================================================================================================

But tell us Human - Tell us about your Evolution - Why have you evolved to where you are


Do you have a purpose Human
- Are you scared of purpose


Tell us about your species - Yes you, cynic of an intelligent universe - Cynic of yourselves and the future - 'We' can't live that way -
tell us how you can - We want to know you Human - WE want you to tell us about the future - WE only live in the future - what is the future of your
Evolution Man


it's time to grow-up Man - Time to take control of your future - Are you ready Human


The future awaits you Man - don't reject it - not becuase of religion - not because of science -

There is a Huge univese out here Human - want to see it? Want to expolre it ?

Ready ot outgrow your past and evolve into the future Human







"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...
edit on 6-6-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView



Survival of the fittest


Evolution is NOT "Survival of the fittest" in the way you seem to be implying.

The phrase applies approximately to natural selection and in this context "fittest" means "most fecund"; that is, the best able to reproduce. It is just that simple. Evolution is NOT natural selection anymore than Paris is France. Evolution is what happens when mutations pass through the filter of natural selection into a population. If a mutation in an individual give it an advantage, then that mutation will spread into the population through its offspring.



and the Machiavellian will to power


'will', whether Machiavellian or otherwise has nothing to do with it. There is NO 'will' involved in evolution.

There is no goal in evolution. There is only reproduce or not (or reproduce better or not, same thing).




Evolution shows that power rules - the species that triumphs is the species that gains dominance


Gorilla's are more powerful than humans. Why do humans dominate? Lions are more powerful than wildebeasts. Why do wildebeasts dominate the savannah?

Your premise is completely wrong from the get go.

Evolution describes a fundamental feature of the biology of life; not with the sociology of inter-tribal affairs.

Evolution is not about one species gaining dominance over another; it is about which mutations help those individuals who carry that mutation reproduce "better" than other individuals in the same population.

Trying to apply evolution to sociology is wrong and dangerous and has NOTHING to do with the 'narrow' focus of biology that it addresses. Don't fall into that trap.


'Might Makes Right'


Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, but that is not a discussion that has anything to do with Biology. Nothing what-so-ever.



So Evolutionists are you happy with your evolving world


Sure, I suppose so. I mean without evolution I wouldn't be here to discuss it would I? So yeah. But what does that or anything else in your rant have to do with biology versus design?

If you are frustrated that discussions about biology don't actually discuss sociology or esoteric pan-galactic psuedo-phenomenology or what ever, why don't you just start your own thread so you can keep it on topic yourself?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I did not start this post titled:

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

I simply commented on it from my somewhat eclectic viewpoint and gave my own theory - which stated simply sees no contradiction between Evolution and ID as the two theories are not directly contradictory - Evolution could be seen as a form of Intellighent Design. Of course nobody here seems to like this theory they would rather debate for the sake of debating
- A human trait.

Ultimately though, and as I've said I agree wtih the Evolutionists. Why? Because man is still not sufficiently evolved to
understand either Intelligent design or an intelligent universe - Be it science or religion - Man still loves his ignorance

edit on 7-6-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Except you're ignoring the fact that ID makes claims of absolutes and nature that are not scientific, and cannot be falsified. This is in fact contradictory to what is observed via the scientific method.
Besides it's been established in a court of law, ID is religion masquerading as science, at best an unsubstantial guess, at worst and most likely a campaign of deception.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
OK, one more time.

Let's take a simple cell, any cell - Would you deny it has a design? Does the cell function in a certain way, and for a certain purpose? How could you now say there is no design, no intelligence involved in a cell? - Intelligent design [as I am using it].
in its simplest form - I can not see a cell that does not possess either design or intelligence.

Extend this to all that has been recorded in Evolution, all we know about genetics and sex and then tell me you can not see
patterns of design and intelligence.

OK, this is not the 'traditional' use of ID as advocated by religionists - These patterns of design in no way prove, or even
necessarily indicate, the existence of an 'intelligent designer', 'a creator' - That is a stretch of faith which has little do with
science.

But I learn from research as I post - And hopefully you can at least see why [from the links and quotes I've given] some scientists, even some Atheists can see ID.

To see patterns of design in nature and and to summarize they are based upon a universe that possesses an inherent order
to it is of course not a science in itself - As I've said more in the philosophy of science.

I maintain the right to ask why things are the way they are - Even if no absolute reason exists - Inteligent Design allows for
this speculation and should always be used with science - And not to oppose science


"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 [Most famous physicist of the 20th Century, especially known for his Theory of Relativity changing the known laws of physics]


Even in science a little imagination can go a long way.

Again my favorite Einstein quote:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”


But you know I don't think seeing existence and the universe as possessing patterns of design that are intelligently interacting requires much imagination - It happen that way, whatever the reason - Science sees it all the time.






"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
Evolution is what happens when mutations pass through the filter of natural selection into a population. If a mutation in an individual give it an advantage, then that mutation will spread into the population through its offspring.


But selection is said to act on phenotypes, not mutations, right?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView




Let's take a simple cell, any cell - Would you deny it has a design?


Yes. Biological systems are defined by structure/function. No "design" is required. Self assembly of organic molecules which can replicate have no "design". Their structure is defined by the laws of physics and chemistry - bond energies, stoichiometry, 3 dimensional structural relationships.




Extend this to all that has been recorded in Evolution, all we know about genetics and sex and then tell me you can not see patterns of design and intelligence.


No. I don't see patterns of design and intelligence. If I understand chemical interactions, I know that molecular dynamics will eventually produce functional molecular structures. If that wasn't the case, the process of building a tree from a seed could not happen. A crystal would never form and water would not flow. Chemistry doesn't require a designer. It only requires the components and conditions to naturally produce the world around us.
edit on 14-6-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView




Again, nothing that a Human mind perceives can be totally objective - And what the universe or existence might look like without a mind perceiving it I have no idea - do you


If that were the case, then the proofs of significant theories like relativity would be disregarded because the data is not "objective". In fact, based on your logic, there would be no point in even conducting experiments to prove someone's theory.

The universe may look different to a species that has a different sensory biology. But that doesn't mean that they can never understand their universe. The universe looked very different to humans before the telescope and the development of instruments which detect and acquire data about the universe. No one has ever claimed that human sensory biology placed a limit on the acquisition of knowledge. To the contrary, the human brain has recognized those limitations and seeks out ways to overcome them. Humans and other species have developed better mouse traps since the first life form appeared on Earth.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Here is an example of what I mean when I say Evolution is a form of Intelligent Design [as I am using the concept - not religiously - but ratheer as a scientific viewpoint/hypothesis]:

The direction of evolution: The rise of cooperative organization ,
-John E. Stewart

Biosystems
Volume 123, September 2014, Pages 27–36
Patterns in Evolution

Abstract:
"Two great trends are evident in the evolution of life on Earth: towards increasing diversification and towards increasing integration. Diversification has spread living processes across the planet, progressively increasing the range of environments and free energy sources exploited by life. Integration has proceeded through a stepwise process in which living entities at one level are integrated into cooperative groups that become larger-scale entities at the next level, and so on, producing cooperative organizations of increasing scale (for example, cooperative groups of simple cells gave rise to the more complex eukaryote cells, groups of these gave rise to multi-cellular organisms, and cooperative groups of these organisms produced animal societies). The trend towards increasing integration has continued during human evolution with the progressive increase in the scale of human groups and societies. The trends towards increasing diversification and integration are both driven by selection. An understanding of the trajectory and causal drivers of the trends suggests that they are likely to culminate in the emergence of a global entity. This entity would emerge from the integration of the living processes, matter, energy and technology of the planet into a global cooperative organization. Such an integration of the results of previous diversifications would enable the global entity to exploit the widest possible range of resources across the varied circumstances of the planet. This paper demonstrates that it's case for directionality meets the tests and criticisms that have proven fatal to previous claims for directionality in evolution".

See whole article here:
www.sciencedirect.com...


Evolution with a direction and a purpose is what I mean by Evolution as being a form of intelligent design.
- This type of theory sees Evolution as being more than just random chance .

Yes random chance is occurring - but at the end of the day there is meaning to it.





"ScienceFictionalism - the way of the Future"
edit on 21-6-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join