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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
There is more proof for intelligent design then for random change, and there is more proof for haphazard design then there is for intelligent design, in fact the word "intelligent" is a misnomer as it can be interpret in basically an infinite number of ways. However its highly likely and most probable that whatever life is and if and whoever created it was basically making # up as it went, you know improvising.

And well? About the same as any human leaning of anything humans have created, I mean sure it works but it just depends, change a few things or circumstances here or there throw in a monkey wrench or two or two hundred monkey wrenches and well it sure as hell is not going to work very well or at all or be considered intelligent or any sort of a design.

There is no intelligent design there is only haphazard half assed design, and anything that works only works for a while, basically its all a work in progress, pretty much like all those theories you listed in your OP. If there is a god out there or even gods well he or they probably really suck at there job and are making # up as they go on there own godly plane of existence. You know god or gods created man and he was proud patting himself on his godly back about a job well done, then he went and took a break came back in a few million years and was like " WTF is this #, it was so cool a moment ago...Dammit, got to scrap it and start all over now"

I suppose we really are made in his image. Or if you don't like that then you can make yourself up in any image you desire, I don't think it matters were all just space dust anyways.




posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 04:15 AM
link   
'The Times They are a Changin' - Bob Dylan

For centuries it was the religious dogmatists who suppressed free thinking and science - Today we have the so called
sceintific 'atheist like' theoreticians trying to suppress free thinking and the open mind - Their concepts of Evolution requires
a purely materialistic universe - void of intelligence as response to the survival instinct and develops and continues to develop as a reaction to purely materialistic physical phenomenon - Why survive at all is a heretical question - Ask them, but you don't need a reason for reason - it is purely reactionary phenomenon. Simple, right ? - Yes, if you are a simpleton !

To them Intelligent Design is heresy - It implies the possibility that we are more than evolved monkeys - a very scary thought
to their paradigm - The powers that rule science are the same powers that want to rule people - free thinking is dangerous
- a being that might posses an independent spirit is hard to control - hard to manipulate - So you indoctrinate them in the
absolute nature of Evolution - convince them in the illusory nature of free-will.

Intelligent Design proves no religious concepts - It is a way of thinking.

And Evolution proves no science - It is an observable phenomenon which can be based upon both known scientific
and other phenomenon still unknown.

And if I want to say Evolution indicates Intelligent Design - And in fact all science indicates Intelligent Design
- go ahead accuse me of heresy - But on the planet I come from intelligence rules and the dogmatists are the heretics




“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
― Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy



“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”
― Isaac Newton



“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead



“The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.” ― Michael J. Behe



“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” ― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
edit on 6-8-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   
The change in the number of chromosomes will have just been a freak genetic mutation that occurred and happened to have positive implications for the survival of that lineage. It could have happened at any time, it may have happened many times.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I don't believe in (young earth) creationism, which is what the word is used for since it was first used around the end of the 19th century. I do not refer to my beliefs as creationism, or myself as a creationist.

I've made some comments about it in this thread as well:
The Genesis Account and How it Refutes Creationism

I tend to not believe things I still have important questions about (related to my understanding of the subject, similar to the way I don't believe anything that I do not understand). Of course that's not to say that I have to know every possible answer to every possible question a person may ask about the subject, just what I consider to be the most important to question or know and understand the answer to.

For example, regarding the alledged chromosomal fusion in human chromosome #2, the most important question for me is apparently the one you don't even want to consider anymore:

Whether or not a fusion actually happened there according to the claims of evolutionists.

I can't help but think to myself after reading your last comment: way to question your beliefs...(intending no offense if taken). I hope I phrased that diplomatically enough, wasn't sure if I should say it out loud.
edit on 6-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Diplomacy is overrated. No offense at all and it's a fair enough comment.

I don't understand enough of the biology stuff to go against the held beliefs of the majority.
All opinions aren't equal and at some point you have to accept that there is some level of "faith" regarding what the scientists say.

Some will say that faith has no part in science and it can all be tested. That may apply to the scientists but the reality is that the majority of people do not understand the science. Nor should they, people spend lifetimes studying certain fields and at one point you must accept they know more than you do.

The motivations of people are probably the main thing I look at which is why I would dismiss any research done for the Creation Institute. You may as well ask the colonel who makes the best chicken.

Whilst it isn't impossible that a guy who got his doctorate in plant science could see something that others who studied the actual field more closely didn't. It just seems more likely that he was influenced more by his employer than the science.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: GailNot


Good point. If you believe in the singularity, why can't you believe in the person who created it?

There is no evidence whatever to suggest that the singularity was created, so asking why a person can't believe in the "person who created it" (assuming it was created and it was a "person") is not really relevant.



Why can you believe one and not the other? Design shows their was a designer.

Well, again, there is no evidence to suggest that there was a creator of the singularity...



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
There is more proof for intelligent design then for random change,

How about you provide this "proof", then.


and there is more proof for haphazard design then there is for intelligent design,

Again, show this "proof".


However its highly likely and most probable that whatever life is and if and whoever created it was basically making # up as it went, you know improvising.

If there was a designer, how is it "highly likely" and "most probable"? What if all life in the universe is exactly how they wanted it to be?


There is no intelligent design there is only haphazard half assed design,

There is no evidence to support design. None whatsoever... no matter as to how hard you try to argue against it.


If there is a god out there or even gods well he or they probably really suck at there job and are making # up as they go on there own godly plane of existence.

Or, alternatively, everything is just as they wanted it to be.


I suppose we really are made in his image.

What do you mean that we are made in his image? Are children who are born with horrific defects made in his image as well? What about those born with chronic illnesses? Are they also made in his image?



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
I could try to dance to all your tunes but prior experience with you has taught me that it's a waste of time and effort to try to reason with those being unreasonable (and clinging to it).



Instead of playing the "I'm taking my toys and going home" game, just say that you can't support your position with science. It's much simpler and I'd at least respect your honesty in admitting that all of your information comes from JW sources.


And there's not much point in responding to your requests for the benefit of others who might want to know cause they can already watch the video if they truly want to know why I said what I said about the subject.


It's not like you even summarized your own video. All you have done, in every single post of yours I've read on ATS, is demonstrate that you can regurgitate and parrot someone else's words when they support your confirmation bias. You have never once shown that you have even an elementary understanding of the science you so despise. If you don't have a basic understanding of it, then you don't actually have any ground to stand on and cast stones from.

Anytime you want to demonstrate the errors in the science and cite actual scientific papers to support it and then use your own words to explain the errors, I'm all ears. The bottom l.ine though is that you are incapable of this miniscule task so you will do your song and dance and try to rationalize in your mind that somehow, it's my fault that you refuse to use your own words or show errors in the science and support those positions with a citation from something that doesn't originate on JW.org If you stand behind the courage of your convictions, I don't see why you are so afraid to have a rational dialogue using your words.


You didn't answer my question either anyway. Just doing the same thing as Kenneth Miller while you're possibly fully aware of the well established facts mentioned by Dr. Tomkins in the video regarding the sequences in question.


No, I didn't. Because I was quite honest and said up front that I wasn't wasting 18 minutes of my life on a video that you couldn't even be bothered to summarize the content of. I'm tired of sifting through videos, quote mines and regurgitated mumbo jumbo from some Jehovah's witness site when you refuse to demonstrate that you understand the content at all. You haven't use your own words once unless it was in some B.S. ad hominem tirade against me with inane personal slurs and judgements that have no basis in reality.

Just once, use your own words to discuss the science at hand, what you believe the errors are and why they are errors. Propose, again, in your own words, an alternate hypothesis based in science and support it with citations from actual scientific sources. This means Papers from peer reviewed journals, articles written by someone with a degree in the field they are discussing...not a video from a religious website that's only purpose is to add to preexisting confirmation biases and not give any new information or test critical thinking.


What I perhaps can do is remind people how the word "vestigial" is defined in the dictionary that shows up on google if you search for that word:

Biology
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.


How does this apply to the telomeres being found in the middle of a chromosome exactly where the fusion took place? Please, use your big person words and explain it all to us. You're the one who claims to understand the topic so well, I eagerly await your educated reply.

what you've done here by citing your source material is show, once again, that you don't understand or even read. It's getting pretty pathetic. The very first quote part of your citation is

(of an organ or part of the body)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
So I take it that that's the only reason you made your requests, so you could follow it up with the usual attacks on my character that you pretend aren't attacks. What else is new around these parts...

I already knew you were going to twist what I said into pretending that I couldn't answer your challenge. Propaganda is so predictable (either the techniques themselves or those who have fallen victim to it and are repeating the way of arguing and debating). Too bad I'm perhaps the only one here who actually can tell the difference between someone with genuine commentary and those only interested in using the usual debate games to win an argument for the audience.

It's never gonna change reality though.
edit on 6-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

All your posts seem to reflect why creationist teaching is damaging to the intellectual development of people.
If you want to learn more about biochemistry, you need to learn what the science says about the chemistry, and what the evidence is in support of the science.
You're not going to get correct information from people who purposely misinterpret the known science in order to prop up indefensible ideology.
All scientific claims must stand on their own merits and evidence, this includes claims made by creationist.



In a 2005 study published in Nature, however, the "precise fusion site" was located on human chromosome 2. The paper noted the presence of "multiple subtelomeric duplications" in this location (i.e., the expected telomere DNA) and also the vestiges of a second centromere on the chromosome that has since been "inactivated" (represented by the orange region above). In a 2012 study, meanwhile, an international team of scientists published a more detailed evolutionary account of how modern-day versions of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla chromosomes attained their current form.


Link


The genetic evidence shows us exactly what you would expect to see if evolution is true. And that speaks volumes about the power of the theory to explain what we actually observe in the natural world.

I understand people not wanting to think that they are apes, as it gives a connotation they are uncomfortable with. But, have you considered the apes may not be thrilled about being related to you either, we don't get to choose our relatives now do we.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

There would have been no need to point out simple facts had you actually attempted to address the topic. But you didn't and you won't. If you feel your character is being impeached, good. Every point I made is supported by your every post. You don't ever discuss what you feel is wrong with or what the errors are in the science. You don't ever use your own words. You do rely almost entirely on videos to support your position, which other than not understanding evolution and declaring it to be a false science, you don't ever actuall articulate your position. You make claims regarding your own understanding of the subject matter yet do not ever use your own words. It's a smart move if you know you can't actually back up what you claim.

Anytime you want to discuss the errors YOU see in the science in your own words and use science to support your position, I'm happy to engage in a dialogue related to the facts. But you don't use facts, don't use science or post actual citations and you don't actually discuss the subject matter. Until you're willing to do so and stop hiding behind out of context quotes and videos, I will continue to call you out on it. This is the legacy you've created for yourself. Don't get angry with me because of how you portray yourself on ATS. Anything I state on here, I can support and back up and unless it's a music forum you won't see videos supporting my positions. And when I am in the wrong or make an error, I own up to it.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
I bow down to your holy perfection. The man who never uses ad hominem arguments, argumenta ad populum, arguments from authority, straw man arguments, half-truths, willful ignorance, dodges and twists of logic and language and a bunch of things you accuse me of.
edit on 6-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
I bow down to your holy perfection. The man who never uses ad hominem arguments, argumenta ad populum, arguments from authority, straw man arguments, half-truths, willful ignorance, dodges and twists of logic and language and a bunch of things you accuse me of.


You forgot Phychological projection. You've perfectly described your entire approach to this conversation.


Another common forum for projection is in internet arguments, where it is usually pathetically obvious to everyone except the projector.[1] In that context, the phenomenon may be called mirror-imaging.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

And once again you refuse to address any facts as you persist in your childish tirade. You're not fooling anyone by ignoring the fact that you are incapable of supporting any of your statements. But hey... Make it all about me. It's an excellent display of defective necromancy.

You continue to apply techniques you want to accuse me of and I'll continue to address the science and when you refuse to, I'll continue to call you out on it.

Once again, anytime you want to address what you believe are errors in science by using your own words instead of regurgitating what someone else tells you to say, let me know. Until then, pick up all your toys, stomp, pour, point fingers and then take your toys home because nobody will play with you despite the fact you won't talk to anyone without calling them names. Keep showing your true colors and setting off flares to distract from your inability to truthfully address the science despite your claims of knowledge on the subject matter. The people posting here with critical thinking skills can tell the difference.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Here's the problem: People like whereislogic are allergic to work. I would wager that he/she has never stepped foot in a laboratory environment. This is analogous to an office clerk arguing with a brain surgeon that his technique is totally wrong. Whereislogic and others are scared to death of legitimate research like vampires are scared to death of garlic. They wither and fold when confronted with anything that requires analytical and objective thought.

That's why I have always said that Creationism and it's tentacles is a cult. It's an excessive and obsessive need to outsmart reality. It attracts the lame, lazy and the crazy who require a demigod to rule their lives and tell them how to think and what to do.

Science, on the other hand, doesn't care what you think as long as you can provide evidence for your hypothesis. You believe an alien race is living on the Moon - fine - show me the data. You are certain that the universe was created by a guy with a white beard - fine - show me the evidence. You think the evidence for common ancestry on this planet is false - fine - show us the evidence.

Actually, it's quite sad that the person is addicted to videos to present his/her views. I think that's everything we need to know about Whereislogic, and so many others, who have allowed shysters and junk bond salesmen to build blockades in their minds to the real world.

To the OP and your questions, I apologize for having to interrupt your discourse. You pose good questions - things that laymen outside the scientific community would pose. But I would strongly suggest that you attempt your own research as well. Put some of those key words into Google Scholar and review the research - you don't have to understand every iota of the methodology. Just get the drift of how and why it's done.

Also, when someone comes back and posts a serious response to your questions, you should respond in kind that you agree or disagree. After all, you're the one posing the questions. We assume you've done some homework.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
I bow down to your holy perfection. The man who never uses ad hominem arguments, argumenta ad populum, arguments from authority, straw man arguments, half-truths, willful ignorance, dodges and twists of logic and language and a bunch of things you accuse me of.


It's always the same fundamentalist atheists fighting the same old battle with the same old tactics
They think they have chosen the right faith and anyone who questions their chosen belief should be evangelise out of existence
Sometimes it's just better to keep the pearls in your pocket



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Also, when someone comes back and posts a serious response to your questions, you should respond in kind that you agree or disagree. After all, you're the one posing the questions. We assume you've done some homework.


Have I not been doing that?
My apologies, please point me to the response I ignored.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I think the problem here is that both sides think they know everything.

In 6 pages has anyone else mentioned anything they don't understand which may go against their beliefs?
Everyone is just asserting things they know, and not one person is even willing to accept they believe the moon/sun ratio thing is weird.

The conversation is always fighting it should be....

Atheist: "Yeah, there is some stuff that seems beyond chance"
Creationist:"Yeah, and perhaps science for religious institutes just pays really well."

If we can't be open to the flaws in our own thinking then the argument is pointless no matter which side you are on.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

What a load of feces. I'm not an atheist and there is nothing fundamental about an argument that is open to contradictory evidence. It's easier for you to paint anyone who understands science with the road brush stroke of an atheist though right? Much easier than putting in the effort to understand something instead of blindly dismissing it. See when data and evidence can be reproduced independantly by multiple parties, no matter how dogmatic you may want to paint a person, scientific discipline specific hypothesis or theory... Whatever frame of reference you want to throw up, if the evidence shows that it is wrong, then the correct information is accepted. It may not be openly embraced and the more extraordinary the claims are, the more extraordinary the evidence supporting it must be but in the end, the truth is what matters. These can't be said for you or others of your ilk.

Likewise, if additional data is able to be independantly reproduced that adds to or strengthens a hypothesis, a theory or current known facts, then that leaves you know room to stand and shout. And that's exactly what has happened the last decade and a half. Old dogmas line Clovis First are now known to be incorrect and relegated to anachronisms. Further proof of human evolution and hominid admixture events based on genomic studies undertaken after the Human Genome Project and Neanderthal Genome Project published their results. Likewise the fusion of human chromosome 2 your counterpart so vehemently opposes yet refuses to discuss, further proven.


You, just like 'whereislogic', make the same statements over and over as if repeating it enough makes it true. When it comes right down to it though, neither of you are actually capable of discussing the science in your own words, not capable of showing that you have the most basic, elementary understanding of science that you dismiss out of hand and then support that blasé dismissiveness with the same garbage in garbage out routine. Quote mines and videos.

The hypocrisy smells so bad I'm starting to think you carry a rotting corpse around with you. All I ever ask is for a dialogue pertaining to your understanding of the science being discussed, what you feel the errors are and then to support it with both your own words and valid science. None of that ever happens and then the smoke and mirrors come out and your Dancing with the Stars routine begins as you point fingers and accuse everyone else of using the tactics that are your own hallmark. If your points of view are so sound, it should be easy enough to cite valid science that agrees with it.

I'll repeat for our what I told your friend. Anytime you want to discuss the science, what you feel the errors are and what you believe supports your position, I would be thrilled to hear your thoughts, in your own words, without linking to a religious site and without videos. I want to know what your own thoughts are not what someone else's regurgitated words look like when you quote them. Whereislogic uses videos and random quotes with no context much like you do. They just rely more on Jehovahs Witness sites for their confirmation bias. I'm not holding my breath though. It's far easier for you to point gingers, claim I'm an atheist and that I'm closed minded to anything outside of my faith, which is beyond laughable because my faith isn't in static interpretations of data. It's in the scientific method. Something neither of you seem to know the first thing about. But go ahead and call me closed minded!



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Pete, you need to use bullet points, I am just not interested in the argument enough to waste my time reading all that
Believe what you will, learn to accept others don't believe what you do

It's a sign of growing up, disagreeing with others but accepting they have another opinion.


Atheist fundamentalists can't help themselves in this forum, they can't stop themselves, just have to deny others their opinion.
Fundamentalist atheists, listen to yourselves



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join