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.

 

In support of Intelligent Design

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Why must we assume that? In science assumptions are frowned upon and often found to be mistaken.


That's gold, pure gold, that's going to be my signature, historical science is nothing but assumption.

On scuds a kite will soar




posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
Idiot? - They may try to make you feel that way here so let me give you a quote from one of the giants of theoretical physics in the 20th Century that you can fight back with - And then ask them to try to prove that science shows nither intelligence or design:

"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



Thanks for the pep talk.
But, I'm asking questions I'm not educated enough to answer myself.

The idiot tag fits.

Although no one has been able to answer them yet so I'm in good company I guess.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Re your first part of the post.
There is some belief that we have less chromosomes than apes because one pair of chromosomes fused together during human evolution.
www.answers.com...
biology.stackexchange.com...
This may be right. Or. It might not. But does make some sense.
The first link also says we have less chromosomes than a potato.

2nd part. Sun and moon ratio. Coincidence. We're just lucky to be in the right place at the right time. My opinion only.

3rd. The people saying these dates are usually trying to sell a book or make money off creating mystery. This is bad because it creates confusion and an ignorant belief in the subject. But. On the other hand. Makes people aware of a subject they might even learn something about. Again. IMO.

4. The big bang is only theory like all the other theories. Only more evidence will help us understand more.

I'd like to know why ID is even a consideration.
In an infinite space, over infinite time. Every physical possibility should be realized.
edit on 4-8-2016 by blackcrowe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

Cheers for trying to answer the OP.

I'm not trying to dispute the fusion. There's clear evidence that the fusion did happen, the question is more how.
The links just basically say it happened without much care for how but it did point me in the right direction.

Denisovans do have the fusion so it happened a while back. And based on the timeframes they use, it is also more than likely that Lucy had 23. Just drops the question back a few million years as I'm still unsure of the process.

However, regardless of how it happened it's obviously not a good argument for any ID unless there plan was to wait a few million years after the fusion occurred.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe

2nd part. Sun and moon ratio. Coincidence. We're just lucky to be in the right place at the right time. My opinion only.


I don't really like the coincidence answer. Of course that doesn't effect the truth of the matter however perhaps there is a plausible gravity based solution to this that doesn't rely on luck.


3rd. The people saying these dates are usually trying to sell a book or make money off creating mystery. This is bad because it creates confusion and an ignorant belief in the subject. But. On the other hand. Makes people aware of a subject they might even learn something about. Again. IMO.


Dawkins and Krauss sell a lot of books too. Selling books and selling snake oil aren't always the same.


4. The big bang is only theory like all the other theories. Only more evidence will help us understand more.

It's a theory that fits perfectly with the observable universe and one that you can test. There are multiple variations of the theory to explain the "bang" like membranes or two universes joining. However the actual "bang" is never in question.


I'd like to know why ID is even a consideration.
In an infinite space, over infinite time. Every physical possibility should be realized.

It's a consideration because if there is proof of it we should look into it. I wouldn't call these questions proof at all and I was able to show the first question had no merit. I expect that none of my questions have any merit, it's more about trying to understand the mistakes I make that lead to these meritless questions.

Although the infinite universe stems from the big bang theory you discounted earlier. The all encompassing infinity doesn't really have much explanatory power tho, something that says everything says nothing.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I might be wrong.
But my assumption is that there was a same gene in 2 ancestors which would be a duplicate of something they didn't need twice. So basically. It was fused. Leaving only 1 version of it.
Hope that makes sense.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I didn't discount the big bang.
I said it's a theory. There are other theories too.
And, evidence will tell us more.
Yes. Evidence points to the big bang. But we still need to know more.
Bad wording by me maybe.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I like some of your thoughts, yet the moon appears big as the sun for the reason God Almighty knows what he is doing. Your legs are the same length for the same reason. Cheers!



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Lassiecat

He even states himself. "The coincidence of it". "Its moving further away". And. "The dinosaurs never saw it. The robot overlords won't see it".
Again. right place at the right time. Lucky us. Were very privileged.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I might be wrong.
But my assumption is that there was a same gene in 2 ancestors which would be a duplicate of something they didn't need twice. So basically. It was fused. Leaving only 1 version of it.
Hope that makes sense.


The closest thing I could see was an example with horses.
66 chromosome horse hooks up with a 64 chromosome horse.

The kid only has 64 chromosomes however needs to accommodate the information of 66.

Information cannot be lost so a pair fuse together and problem solved.

That's the best example I've seen to account for the fusion without resulting in infertility and other issues.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

They can only breed a 64 offspring. Because both parents would be required to have the 66 in the first place. Even if it was recessive in one parent. But they both have 64 also. Hence the 64 offspring.
Inbreeding would be required. Then crossbreeding. I think.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I didn't discount the big bang.
I said it's a theory. There are other theories too.
And, evidence will tell us more.
Yes. Evidence points to the big bang. But we still need to know more.
Bad wording by me maybe.


Fair enough. I was just confused as you mentioned further evidence was needed to answer the question.
I don't think it's possible to have solid proof of a time before matter (or time) so I assumed you were brushing off the question.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

They can only breed a 64 offspring. Because both parents would be required to have the 66 in the first place. Even if it was recessive in one parent. But they both have 64 also. Hence the 64 offspring.
Inbreeding would be required. Then crossbreeding. I think.


I looked it up again.
It's Przewalski's Horse that has 66 whilst regular horses have 64.

The kids actually have 65, not 64 like I said. However it's the same deal.
Information can't be lost so it fuses a pair.

Apparently it's one of the few times where different numbers don't seem to matter that much I guess.
I'm assuming based on my minutes of research that the hominid fusion is probably similar.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well. I've had my guesses now.
I don't think i can add any more.
But. It got me thinking.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Debate? Give me the time and the place. It's about time one of you (or all of you - doesn't matter to me), steps up to the plate and presents your evidence.

Come up with some stipulations of victory. What determines the winner? Voting from observers would be too biased, unless we got a group of undecided people (regarding evo or ID). Or is it simply a mental exercise?



You name the time and the place. I'll be there.


West end of the reflecting pool in Washington DC at noon would be regal enough. ATS forum on a weekend might be the most convenient though.


Well are you up to a debate or not? The other guy didn't answer so I'll take that as a no.

If you're not, just say so and we'll be done with it.

Thanks



spoiler alert: its a waste of your time.

Evolution debate

Another evolution debate

ANOTHER evolution debate

Yet another evolution debate

Wait, again? Seriously?

....*sigh*


figured this would be relevant. since, you know, this thread is only the latest among many many others. all of which meet the same pointless end.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
figured this would be relevant. since, you know, this thread is only the latest among many many others. all of which meet the same pointless end.


Thanks for contributing.

At least you've stayed true to the spirit of things and ignored the OP.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: TzarChasm
figured this would be relevant. since, you know, this thread is only the latest among many many others. all of which meet the same pointless end.


Thanks for contributing.

At least you've stayed true to the spirit of things and ignored the OP.



here is what you said:


I don't want a debate, but I would love to hear what questions other people have also. With any luck we can either clear up some misconceptions or find new one's and leave this thread a little dumber.


and i provided a list of very similar threads in which such misconceptions have already been cleared up or addressed. otherwise you may just have to google it like everyone else.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

TzarChasm wrote:


figured this would be relevant. since, you know, this thread is only the latest among many many others. all of which meet the same pointless end.

Pointless end
Yes, you are being true to form in pointing out the pointlessness of existence - And that is really the whole
point - Point being that many Humans are infected by a spirit that will not accept pointless ends and an existent state of
pointlessness - They want meaning, intelligence, design - not a pointless beginning with a pointless end.

As I've stated in other posts on the subject and have even quoted some scientists that also see ID as an acceptable hypothetical concept, Intelligent Design is not a science, not a religion based upon faith - No, ID is a philosophical viewpoint, it is based upon minds that seek more than raw science or faith based religions. Yes, it is in some ways prejudicial and based upon faith - A faith in Human intelligence - An intelligence that will not accept meaninglessness - I'd sooner entertain any far out hypothesis that is interesting before I would entertain for one second a belief that existence is meaningless
- to me existence is, if nothing else meaningful - And if for now Intelligent Design fills in the blanks that science can
not answer, so be it - One day science may fill in the spaces, and on some level I have a faith that it will - Until then
Intelligent Desigh will have to do - Everything has meaning - Everything has purpose



"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
- Max Planck


"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



"There are no facts, only interpretations." -Friedrich Nietzsche



“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” ― Carl Sagan, Cosmos





"ScienceFictionalism - the way of the Future"
"Why Existence Exists"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes, I said I don't want a debate. And you responded with 6 links, 4 of which have debate in the title.
I didn't go through every letter but couldn't see anything relevant to the topic at a glance.

Just countless pages of people rushing to show how smart or spiritual they are.

This one took until the 3rd page before someone actually tried to discuss what I raised.
Although, of the 4 questions I had only 3 remain.

I'm happy with that progress so far.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: AlienView
Idiot? - They may try to make you feel that way here so let me give you a quote from one of the giants of theoretical physics in the 20th Century that you can fight back with - And then ask them to try to prove that science shows nither intelligence or design:

"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



Thanks for the pep talk.
But, I'm asking questions I'm not educated enough to answer myself.

The idiot tag fits.

Although no one has been able to answer them yet so I'm in good company I guess.


Yes you are an idiot, you are because scientists have decided that these issues are non issues and that the theory of evolution is sound
The idea, the petulance, the narcissistic tendency, the very thought that you think you, you unlearned, uneducated, unreasonable a person should question science, question more learned and educated people and expect a response, a reasonable reply.

That's idiotic, sadly it is unheard of that a person could expect a reasonable response to serious questions
Sadly even asking a question, asking for an explanation, seeking knowledge makes a person an idiot.
This could only happen in the scientific field of evolution, why? Because historical science is not and never will be A science like other fields

The questions are good, the idea of expecting answers, the idea of asking them and expecting genuine dialogue, not so good

Expect opinion and assumption masqueraded as real scientists from those who have hearts full of faith and heads full of hopes



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join