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.

 

Intelligent design theory, PROVEN

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I meant life in general - but I'm sure you knew that.

Trying not to stray too far from the OP, I find that intelligent design assumes there is a certain order in the universe. It brings up some problems, though - primarily the whole issue of free will.

I think in order to prove/disprove the existence of a soul, we'd first have to define what "soul" means. Although, if my memory serves me right, Frederick the Great was able to prove there was no soul by locking a man in a box, killing him, and pointing to the lack of soul that came forth.

Indeed, death does seem inevitable. Would that not point to life being inevitable?




posted on May, 5 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: cuckooold

The better question is, How can you prove it does'nt exist?


This is not a better question at all, as it is impossible to prove a negative. Burden of proof and all that jazz.

www.logicallyfallacious.com...


Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath




Indeed, death does seem inevitable. Would that not point to life being inevitable?
Defining things is a very good step in the process of knowing .ambiguous words and terms need to have a base line understanding point at which to move forward from .


Indeed, death does seem inevitable.
"Seems" doesn't sound definite and so if we want to be 100% confident in a statement maybe death is the place to start .Is there anything living that doesn't have a shelf life ? We are not looking for a good before date :>) We need to be very certain before we can say for sure one way or another .



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Well kinda sorta.

There are many peer reviewed articles out about ID now, they have peer reviews, so its a theory, if we understand theory as evidence, does it make it a proven science?
Of course its not empirical evidence, like what I would expect from a real proven scientific fact. It is evidence, it is a theory, am I repeating myself to much

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.discovery.org...

journals.plos.org...

Now a theory is

plato.stanford.edu...

www.geo.sunysb.edu...

www.nap.edu...

So there we have a scientific theory, it has peer reviews and it is clear and precise in its explanations.

Now to borrow from NI


originally posted by: Noinden



" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]" From Wikipedia(yet I include the citations they use, least you try the "don't trust Wikipedia fallacy).



(1) National Academy of Sciences, 1999 (www.nap.edu...)
(2) "The Structure of Scientific Theories" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu...)
(2) Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science" (www.geo.sunysb.edu...)


So Intelligent Design is a theory, it has evidence, peer reviewed so cant be ignored as a faith anymore, scientific evidence as listed.

www.faithandevolution.org...


So feel free to shred, tear, rip up at it gents.

Evidence, theory, science.







Learn what a theory means in science first.

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



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: defiythelie

OH trust me we've had this discussion with him many times. The circular reasoning is getting close



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: defiythelie

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So can you show me where evolution is
scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Then we can discuss the differences between the faith people have in evolution and ID



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013
I have this crazy notion that one day a person like you will stop ignoring, twisting or trivializing the facts mentioned in the video in this comment that relate to what you just talked about and causes quite a bit of desperation in my search for people making sensible comments when they express their beliefs while using concepts borrowed from ancient Pagan religious philosophers (including Zeus- and Gaia-worshippers) in order to explain those beliefs.
edit on 6-5-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

As I have had with those in your faith, not a step closer to admitting you havnt a clue, that is what surprises me most



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So can you show me where evolution is
scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Then we can discuss the differences between the faith people have in evolution and ID


scholar.google.com...

Start there.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So can you show me where evolution is
scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Then we can discuss the differences between the faith people have in evolution and ID


scholar.google.com...

Start there.


I don't think so Barcs
I don't want to see any of your religious propoganda sites anymore

There are lots of id design based peer reviewed articles, that makes Id a theory, it makes Id a proven science by your logic



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Having an article peer reviewed or published doesn't make ID a theory and it sure as hell doesn't make it proven science. Could you perhaps point out which aspects of ID are falsifiable?

I do find it extraordinarily ironic though that your first "peer reviewed" paper in the OP was written by Michael Behe who was forced to admit under cross examination during the Dover School District ID trial that no peer reviewed scientific journal has published any research that supports ID claims. That he lied when he claimed his 1996 book 'Darwin's Black Box' had been peer reviewed. That he made prior claims that evolution could not explain immunology but neglected to include the part where he didn't actually conduct relevant scientific inquiry into this claim. Not only did he decline to engage in due diligence, he flat out refused to do so when presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, 9 books and several relevant book chapters on the subject. And my favorite one by your ID poster boy... That the definition of scientific theory, as presented by the National Academy of Sciences, does not encompass ID. And thst if you used Behe's "relaxed" definition of theory as he does for ID then Astrology and Numerology would also be considered theories. There's no need for a continued character assassination of Behe. He does just fine on his own. I would hardly call any of what he does science though.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
And yet another religious piece dressed up and pretending to be science. Science is not a matter of having peer reviewed journals by the way any more than wearing a cross makes you a priest.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Esotericum
And yet another religious piece dressed up and pretending to be science. Science is not a matter of having peer reviewed journals by the way any more than wearing a cross makes you a priest.


Oh please don't make that mistake
I made it very clear that I believe that creation is a faith
I was just using the same silly argument I get from so many others

Reading, assuming doesn't work very well, reading and understanding might help



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Esotericum
And yet another religious piece dressed up and pretending to be science. Science is not a matter of having peer reviewed journals by the way any more than wearing a cross makes you a priest.


Oh please don't make that mistake
I made it very clear that I believe that creation is a faith
I was just using the same silly argument I get from so many others

Reading, assuming doesn't work very well, reading and understanding might help


Calling science a religion is not the same as calling religion a religion or calling out people that lie about science. It's not even remotely comparable. One is actually faith based, the other is not. I get you are trying to emulate the people that debunk and critique you, but the argument simply isn't relevant.

There is a very strict process of peer review in science. It's not just your buddy Joe reading your work. Top accredited journals published by leading scientists in their field. It's not just dogma, it's very heavily scrutinized. If you have such strong doubts about scientific research, you should become a scientist and review the experiments yourself.

Why bother attacking people that understand science on a conspiracy forum? What do you possibly gain by attacking something you barely even understand?
edit on 5 7 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Well kinda sorta.


is that like kinda sorta pregnant? or kinda sorta dead? that must be how jesus survived. he was "kinda sorta dead" but not really.


So Intelligent Design is a theory, it has evidence, peer reviewed so cant be ignored as a faith anymore, scientific evidence as listed.


evidence has to be tested. it has to be looked at in context of a question, then examined to see if it actually introduces new data. this data then has to be reproduced, and the circumstances compared and so on and so forth. its a bit more involved than just googling any article that supports your claim.
edit on 7-5-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Esotericum
And yet another religious piece dressed up and pretending to be science. Science is not a matter of having peer reviewed journals by the way any more than wearing a cross makes you a priest.


Oh please don't make that mistake
I made it very clear that I believe that creation is a faith
I was just using the same silly argument I get from so many others

Reading, assuming doesn't work very well, reading and understanding might help


oh please dont make that mistake, comparing creationist hypotheses with the theories of evolution and gravity


Reading, assuming doesn't work very well, reading and understanding might help


...really??


edit on 7-5-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman


Well kinda sorta.


is that like kinda sorta pregnant? or kinda sorta dead? that must be how jesus survived. he was "kinda sorta dead" but not really.


So Intelligent Design is a theory, it has evidence, peer reviewed so cant be ignored as a faith anymore, scientific evidence as listed.


evidence has to be tested. it has to be looked at in context of a question, then examined to see if it actually introduces new data. this data then has to be reproduced, and the circumstances compared and so on and so forth. its a bit more involved than just googling any article that supports your claim.


That's a bit disingenuous
You want real science to explain creation, yet accept pseudo science for evolution

Why can't I find real scientific evidence for evolution

Show me real data and how that data is reproduced, not data that explains how something works or how it may have evolved, data that shows it did

Your standards for evolution are non existent



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Esotericum
And yet another religious piece dressed up and pretending to be science. Science is not a matter of having peer reviewed journals by the way any more than wearing a cross makes you a priest.


Oh please don't make that mistake
I made it very clear that I believe that creation is a faith
I was just using the same silly argument I get from so many others

Reading, assuming doesn't work very well, reading and understanding might help


Calling science a religion is not the same as calling religion a religion or calling out people that lie about science. It's not even remotely comparable. One is actually faith based, the other is not. I get you are trying to emulate the people that debunk and critique you, but the argument simply isn't relevant.

There is a very strict process of peer review in science. It's not just your buddy Joe reading your work. Top accredited journals published by leading scientists in their field. It's not just dogma, it's very heavily scrutinized. If you have such strong doubts about scientific research, you should become a scientist and review the experiments yourself.

Why bother attacking people that understand science on a conspiracy forum? What do you possibly gain by attacking something you barely even understand?


Peer review, it sounds like your holy texts

Go read how many peer reviews have been overturned recently, how many study's have been proven wrong
A peer review is still at best an educated guess, science once accepted the earth was round, smoking was good for you, arsenic fed dna and proved evolution and aliens, If it's not an outright lie and unchecked as proven countless times

It must be science



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




science once accepted the earth was round,

It isn't?
Yeah. Stupid science.

edit on 5/7/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman




science once accepted the earth was round,

It isn't?
Yeah. Stupid science.


Yeah, you know it

Preach it brother



Let's amend it and call it the "faculty" of science

Life would be boring without a local pedant overseeing the flock



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join