Intelligent design theory, PROVEN

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am not claiming my opinion is a science, evolution is claiming their opinion is science, they lack evidence, peer reviews are not science evident

However, the OP is not about providing proof for evolution, the OP is about proving Intelligent Design is real...... and we are yet to see the proof.

Agatha that's silly

I was just showing you how silly he evolutionist argument was by saying peer reviews prove science, peer reviews don't prove science

Any one who thinks peer reviews prove science should hang their heads collectively in shame

I am sorry you can't read words and understand context, maybe I should have said "sarcasm" or used the word "Not" after

So the peer reviewed journals in Biology and Pharmacology, Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Research, Genetic Disease Research - all these journals don't mean a damn thing - right??? But when you get sick, where do you go? You go to the doctor who utilizes everything that is learned in PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS.
The next time you have occasion to visit your doctor - preferably your psychiatrist - ask him/her what their opinion is of peer reviewed journals. And make sure you tell them that PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS DO NOT REPRESENT SCIENCE. They are junk science.
Let us know what the outcome is - if you can after they put you in a straitjacket.

a reply to: Phantom423

I truly do applaud the effort you're putting in here. Particularly the posts preceding this one. Unfortunately you(and consequently everyone else attempting to counter the elementary school level understanding of science as a whole, myself included) are completely wasting all time, energy and effort expenditures as ole raggedy has demonstrated over and over not just a complete lack of comprehension when it comes to how the most basic aspects of scientific discovery operate but an absolute unwillingness to attempt to understand things he derides. It's really quite disturbing to see people like this proliferate and disseminate the level of ignorance with such gravitas we see here. I honestly have trouble believing they are anything other than a troll at this point. Even the most die hard and fervent Christians I've talked to on ATS, like Randyvs for example, will take the time to actually read the information I present to him. He may not agree with me but Randyvs is actually interested in LEARNING and therefore puts in some sort of effort. Raggedy in contrast to that mindset has stated repeatedly that he never reads anything we post, that there is nothing that would make him believe the science. It's not thst he doesn't understand it, he refuses to TRY to understand the material and them proceeds to recycle the same posts and replies over and over and over again. It's the most extreme instance of willful ignorance I've seen, maybe ever. The only reason I keep replying at this point is just in case there are people lurking, someone needs to call out the blatant lies, fabrications and misrepresentations of the actual science involved and point the people who might actually be interested in bettering themselves in the right direction. Because let's be honest, raggedy may create new thread titles fairly regularly but every thread is the exact same thing, the exact same message, same distortions and the same lies. It's just wrapped up with a new click bait title. It's too bad that this type of activity has become as commonplace as complacency in ATS. It's a far cry from the site I started lurking a dozen years ago.

a reply to: dragonridr

we have empirical evidence in an isolated area where Charles Darwin did his research and studies for years..

He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors, and in a joint publication with Alfred Russel Wallace introduced his scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding

Mutations is not adding something, its actually losing, its damage on the DNA sequence.. Those loses will either help you strive or kill you.. Intelligent design does not kill you.. Evolution would..

i wonder, if intelligent design were the case, why would sun burn or skin cancer be a thing especially for our fair-skinned counterparts??

While evolution and atheism are all based on theories and philosophies, evidence, which is needed to be scientific, surrounds us that their is intelligent design all around us. A child can see that the world is like a machine. Much like a complex watch that didn't evolve from a rock, the earth has complexities in itself that all serve intentional purposes. The very location and stability of our planet proves that it was put at its address in the galaxy for a reason. We just happen to be close enough to stay warm, but far enough to not get scorched. That's not chance. We have a water cycle, seasons, varieties of ecosystems that all collaborate to make life sustainable. It's intentional. Anyone who says otherwise had a personal agenda. a reply to: Raggedyman

a reply to: choos

I think i answered it in the question above..

Indications showed that dark skin is more prone to frostbite than white skin

Link to - Frostbite

--------------

I could link a wikipedia page - Link

With receptors located in the cells of many major organs and in the immune system, Vitamin D helps in calcium absorption and prevents aberrant cell division. UVB radiation catalyzes its creation in our skin.

According to Jablonski, “there is a conspicuous geographical pattern” between skin color and distance from the equator. At more northern or southern latitudes, the level of UVB rays hitting Earth’s surface decreases due to the planet’s tilt. The equator is bathed year-round in UVB rays, but seasonal variations mean that people in Northern Europe receive virtually no UVB exposure in winters.

As a result, Jablonski said, humans living near the equator developed darker skin tones, while those in northern climates developed lighter hues. High humidity also decreases UVB levels, as marked by the contrast between skin tones of early humans living in dry equatorial Africa and moist equatorial South America.

Human Skin color Link

intelligent design theory, PROVEN

Sunsets. Beauty. Sense of Humor. Mathematics. Intelligent creatures. Phi and Pi in nature. Written history. Love. Opposable thumbs. the genetic code.

What would even constitute evidence for you atheists - an old guy with a grey beard hanging out in the clouds? Get real.

a reply to: peter vlar

Thank you Peter - I appreciate the sentiment. Raggedy is symptomatic of a pervasive attitude of willful ignorance. And it's okay. As I've said before, I think it's important to post what's real, particularly because the topic of evolution is hardcore science. We're not talking philosophy, psychology, numerology or psycho social bs. This is real science and how it works. The working aspect is the most important - to me anyway. As a bench scientist, I know what it takes to design, organize and implement an experiment - all the modifications, calibrating instruments, checking, double checking, vetting the data - it's a nonstop process of making sure you're on the right track. What these yokels don't realize is that BEFORE you even submit a paper for publication, you'll be consulting others in your field, obtaining opinions, having a top notch chemistry editor read your work for errors (and they do happen). They have no idea the amount of work that goes into these projects. And yet, without ever having stepped foot into a real lab, they have conclusive opinions that are absolute.

Creationism is a cult. Although I realize that they have very little influence in the real world, I still think they pose a danger and should always be challenged.

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
While evolution and atheism are all based on theories and philosophies, evidence, which is needed to be scientific, surrounds us that their is intelligent design all around us.

This is not at all accurate. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis(or group of hypothesis) that have been supported by repeated testing and independent verification of those results. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the theory that explains how the mechanisms of evolution work. Like many others, you confuse the layman's version of a theory with the scientific definition of "Theory". In science, the word "Theory" refers to the way we interpret facts. This means you can't have a Scientific Theory without facts to support it. Evolution is supported by multiple scientific disciplines from biology to chemistry to genetics. The way you describe it, you are referring to a hypothesis.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution or the validities of Scientific Theories. It is nothing more than the belief that there is no god or gods. Many prominent proponents of evolution and scientists who's work substantiates MES are in fact religious people. See, the thing about science is that it can be tested and it can be falsified with no regard to the geographic location of your birth. Religion on the other hand is entirely dependent on that geographical locus and that of your parents(or whomever the guardians who raised you are).

A child can see that the world is like a machine. Much like a complex watch that didn't evolve from a rock, the earth has complexities in itself that all serve intentional purposes.

So despite stating adamantly that evidence is everywhere proving an intelligent designer, you post none and depend on the tenets of irreducible complexity (which is itself nothing more than a rehashed 'watchmakers fallacy') and a finely tuned universe to make your case? That isn't terribly scientific now is it?

The very location and stability of our planet proves that it was put at its address in the galaxy for a reason. We just happen to be close enough to stay warm, but far enough to not get scorched.

The "stability" of our planet and it's incumbent ecosystems isn't always stable though. Many times periods in the geologic history of our planet were hostile and unsuitable to complex life. Other periods that were stable enough for complex life were hostile to and incompatible with human life. The axial tilt was not always as stable as it is now, the moon was not always where it currently resides and each day it slips just a tiny bit further away from us. Atmospheric conditions have been either too hot in occasions, far too cold on others and the atmosphere was not always conducive to our survival. Technically, both Venus and Mars are also in the "Goldilocks Zone" and at differing periods in history could have supported some form of life. Unless you're going to argue along with raggedy that the earth is less than 10 KA?

That's not chance.

And you are supporting this assertion with...?

We have a water cycle, seasons, varieties of ecosystems that all collaborate to make life sustainable. It's intentional. Anyone who says otherwise had a personal agenda. a reply to: Raggedyman

Many planets and moon within our own solar system exhibit various ecosystems, have seasons and depending on their atmospheric makeup, have water cycles or the equivalent thereof. Do you mean to imply that people who study various sciences have a personal agenda while you remain completely neutral and are simply swayed by the staggering and overwhelming evidence that you neglected to cite in support for an intelligent designer? Which intelligent designer do,you favor? The YEC Yahweh/Jehovah? The old world geology of most Christians? Perhaps Odin or Zeus is your flavor of the month? No? Perhaps the Rig Veda is more your cup,of tea then?

a reply to: cooperton

Yet again you folks assume it is just atheists objecting to this sort of thread. Such narrow minds you have.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Yet again you folks assume it is just atheists objecting to this sort of thread. Such narrow minds you have.

So you're a theist who believes in unintelligent design (?) ... I was under the impression all theists would inherently believe in an intelligent design.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes I am a polytheist, and the cosmology of my ancestors (and this would be the various western Indo-European speaking peoples) does not require that "the Gods did it" to be part of how things are.

The simplest expression of how things started is that order came from Chaos, before the Gods, and then the Gods arose.

As a scientist this does not disagree with my spiritual gnosis.

a reply to: PanPiper

that explaination suits evolution theories..

i was more wanting to know from the intelligent design point of view.

a reply to: choos



or

you can watch a classic

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Agatha that's silly

I was just showing you how silly he evolutionist argument was by saying peer reviews prove science, peer reviews don't prove science

Any one who thinks peer reviews prove science should hang their heads collectively in shame

I am sorry you can't read words and understand context, maybe I should have said "sarcasm" or used the word "Not" after

hahaha I don't understand context? This from the man who wanted to prove peer reviewed science is untrustworthy and yet failed to post ONE single peer reviewed study about ID? There are none/zero peer reviewed articles about ID. Zero. Because you cannot evaluate something that is not science but just people's imagination.

Real science like evolution, on the other hand, has thousands of scholarly articles that are peer reviewed.

a reply to: Agartha

And you believe those peer reviewed articles prove evolution
It seems peer review is your bible

You don't understand context

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Agartha

And you believe those peer reviewed articles prove evolution
It seems peer review is your bible

You don't understand context

Do you? You still haven't read a single article or commented on the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE posted yesterday.
Your scam isn't working.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Agartha

And you believe those peer reviewed articles prove evolution
It seems peer review is your bible

You don't understand context

And just to assist your memory, here's the link again:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why isn't that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE??? Everyone is breathless anticipating your reply.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Agartha

And you believe those peer reviewed articles prove evolution
It seems peer review is your bible

You don't understand context

And just to assist your memory, here's the link again:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why isn't that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE??? Everyone is breathless anticipating your reply.

If I read every religios link shown to me by the magic faith believer I wouldn't have a life

Why not just tell me what proof they you have that proves your religion of evolution
I am game are you

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Agartha

And you believe those peer reviewed articles prove evolution
It seems peer review is your bible

You don't understand context

And just to assist your memory, here's the link again:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why isn't that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE??? Everyone is breathless anticipating your reply.

If I read every religios link shown to me by the magic faith believer I wouldn't have a life

Why not just tell me what proof they you have that proves your religion of evolution
I am game are you

Sure. It's in that paper. Read it. It's not a religion. It's SCIENCE. It's EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Show me that it isn't.
It's also only ONE paper - you don't have to read the 150,000+ papers. Get it?