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.

 

Flat Earth is a Front for Intelligent Design

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Thats like saying how did a computer software program 'come about'. DNA is so much more advanced than mere computer code anyway. For one, its alive.

Or another analogy, how did a 747 Jumbo jet "come about"? Assuming you meant 'evolved' thats like saying it designed, assembled and flew all by itself.


That's not a valid comparison because we know jets and computer programs are made by humans. We don't know that DNA was programmed so to say "who programmed it?" without any evidence of any programmer, software functionality, or command functions is presumptuous. Based on the evidence thus far, it emerged from RNA, although there is still a LOT we don't know. There isn't any reason to assume programmer.




posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: intrptr
Thats like saying how did a computer software program 'come about'. DNA is so much more advanced than mere computer code anyway. For one, its alive.

Or another analogy, how did a 747 Jumbo jet "come about"? Assuming you meant 'evolved' thats like saying it designed, assembled and flew all by itself.


That's not a valid comparison because we know jets and computer programs are made by humans. We don't know that DNA was programmed so to say "who programmed it?" without any evidence of any programmer, software functionality, or command functions is presumptuous. Based on the evidence thus far, it emerged from RNA, although there is still a LOT we don't know. There isn't any reason to assume programmer.


Then they wouldn't refer to it as Genetic Code. The most complex of firmware, encoding all life processes, including cell division (growth), reproduction (womb) and programming for all that.

But Im game, see if humans can possibly reproduce a womb, seed or egg.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32 First of all, you aren't even looking at the right number.I The earth allegedly rotates every 24 hrs at 1000 mph. That would be the number you would use to make any calculations regarding airline flight times. Then of course it is rotating around the sun at a whopping 67000 mph, not to mention the movement of the galaxy at about 600,000 mph. And the sun is not stationary but it is always blasting away from the "big bang" into infiniti. The big bang being that explosion that created something out of nothing. Isn't it absolutely amazing that we can with certainty find the north star , Polaris smack dab in the middle of all this movement every night?

But the flat earth theory is for idiots?

Also, recognizing intelligent design does not mean you have to be a bible thumper. All you need are eyes, logic and the ability to reason and a dab of common sense doesn't hurt either.


edit on 5-8-2017 by pointessa because: added another thought



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: intrptr
Thats like saying how did a computer software program 'come about'. DNA is so much more advanced than mere computer code anyway. For one, its alive.

Or another analogy, how did a 747 Jumbo jet "come about"? Assuming you meant 'evolved' thats like saying it designed, assembled and flew all by itself.


That's not a valid comparison because we know jets and computer programs are made by humans. We don't know that DNA was programmed so to say "who programmed it?" without any evidence of any programmer, software functionality, or command functions is presumptuous. Based on the evidence thus far, it emerged from RNA, although there is still a LOT we don't know. There isn't any reason to assume programmer.


Then they wouldn't refer to it as Genetic Code. The most complex of firmware, encoding all life processes, including cell division (growth), reproduction (womb) and programming for all that.


It's just an analogous comparison to put an overly complex scenario in simplified terms so that people without a formal education in biology or genetics can grasp the concept easier. It doesn't mean it's an actual code, sorfteare, firnware or however else you want to insist it to be.

It honestly is just a simplified way of showing how the 4 bases of DNA (adenine, thyacine, Cytosine and Guanine ) are translated into the amino acids that form the building, constituents of proteins and the products of most genes locks of all known life. Of these 4 bases (ATC&G) there are 64 possible codons that code for the 20 amino acids that naturally occur on earth. (Several additional amino acids were able to be created in lab conditions while initial work was done working on the hypothesis of Abiogenesis during the Miller-Urey experiments) but this also shows us that some amino acids are coded for by more than one "triplet". For reference, each adjacent group of 3 DNA bases codes for a single
Amino acid yet some amino acids are coded for by more than one triplet.

To further expound on that point, the "genetic code" isn't universal.nearly so, yes, but NOT universal. Mitochondria has a complete separate DNA from the rest of the organism and there are other examples as well but I don't want to muddy the waters further.

What the best universality of DNA does tell us, is that all currently known life does in fact stem from a common ancestor. We're this. It true, you would see combinations containing proteins beyond A,T, C and G if there were not a universal common ancestor. That's nowhere near the same thing as a creative source for these proteins. If there is a creator or programmer, he/she or it is a very crappy one to not preemptively account for any of, let alone all of, the potential causes of mutations. Nor would there be such variation within a single species let alone multiple species.

Insisting that there had to be a creator who wrote the genetic code as your posts allude to, isn't evidence of anything of the sort occurring. All of this "encoding of all life processes" that you believe happened is nonsensical within the context of known evolutionary history and everything we have learned about genetics the last 30 years. Otherwise, H. Sapiens Sapiens would not show different levels of genetic diversity in different populations l, everyone would have similar morphological, eye colors skin colors etc... and the latter 2 examples have only occurred in HSS in the last 10 Ka and the mutations that code for things like light colored eyes, light colored skin tone and red hair would be the same exact codons associated with those adaptations in Neanderthal and we know this is not the case. So if somgow there is a "programmer" as you believe, they're a very, very poor one.


But Im game, see if humans can possibly reproduce a womb, seed or egg.


That's a strawman. Nothing more. You haven't shown a single citeable piece of data to support your claims outside of some woo on ICR's page or Ken ham's cockamamie ineptitude posing as scientific criticism. Feel free to provide something tangible that's based in science if you have that information though. I'm always interested to see new data and look into how they obtained their results if you can provide citations so that I and other may
Engage in due diligence.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: pointessa

Isn't it absolutely amazing that we can with certainty find the north star , Polaris smack dab in the middle of all this movement every night?
Not really, no. No more amazing that someone sitting across the aisle from you on a plane is there whenever you look across the aisle. But you know that Polaris has not always been, nor will it forever be, the north star.


But it's interesting you should mention Polaris.

Can you explain how, on a flat world, its elevation (angle above the horizon) would correspond to its latitude?
It does do that, you know. Amazing.

It's just one of the easily observable things that showed people, since a long long time ago, that the world is indeed round.
edit on 8/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Then they wouldn't refer to it as Genetic Code. The most complex of firmware, encoding all life processes, including cell division (growth), reproduction (womb) and programming for all that.

But Im game, see if humans can possibly reproduce a womb, seed or egg.


Peter did a great job breaking this down, but you are getting caught up in semantics. Why does it matter how they refer to it?

It's like how they refer to nuclear fusion in power plants, when it's actually fission. By your logic nuclear power plants are the same as the sun, because people use the term "fusion".



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Life is not 'semantic' nor happenstance. Life is the difference.

I know the difference between fission and fusion. The process belongs in the sun, tens of millions of miles away, not here on earth, for one.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


It's just one of the easily observable things that showed people, since a long long time ago, that the world is indeed round.

Hi Phage! Glad you're still gracing the boards.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs

Life is not 'semantic' nor happenstance. Life is the difference.

I know the difference between fission and fusion. The process belongs in the sun, tens of millions of miles away, not here on earth, for one.


I don't think you understood what I said. The semantics part was in reference to you saying that it's called the "genetic code" as a reason for assuming it was programmed. That's why I brought up the fusion and fission example. I wasn't saying that you didn't know the difference. The English language is very diverse. You can't get hung up on how people label things, words have a variety of meanings, especially in science. Is a duck billed platypus a duck? It has a duck bill, so it must be a duck, right? That's how you are describing genetic code. DNA appears to have a code, therefor a code must be part of a program, so it was programmed. Same faulty logic.

Plus there are plenty of things out there in nature that have the appearance of design but arose from natural processes. I don't care if you want to believe life was designed, but it's not a requirement or proven fact, that's all I'm saying. There are far more experiments in favor of abiogenesis than there are for intelligent design.
edit on 8 7 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


DNA appears to have a code...

Yes, it is encoded.

When I see a computer screen filled with words, I can't see the code written in machine language (the programming) that is behind it. Neither could science 'see' DNA's double helix in the chromosomes until they invented microscopes.

Let alone decode it.

Big BIG difference between Software and Chromosomes, the code of life.

edit on 7-8-2017 by intrptr because: bb code and additional



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
There are far more experiments in favor of abiogenesis than there are for intelligent design.


Are there?

I thought it was pretty much accepted that both are extremely unlikely.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, that was my point exactly. Computer software is MUCH different than genetic code. That's why it's faulty to assume programmer, just because we call it code.
edit on 8 8 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Barcs
There are far more experiments in favor of abiogenesis than there are for intelligent design.


Are there?

I thought it was pretty much accepted that both are extremely unlikely.


You may be thinking of spontaneous generation. That has been pretty much ruled out scientifically. Abiogenesis is about life arising from its basic components and there are a few experiments that have duplicated parts of the process (ie formation of amino acids from high energy events, DNA self assembly from RNA, and a few others). Granted it hasn't been proved yet and more investigation needs to be done, there is evidence.
edit on 8 8 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, that was my point exactly. Computer software is MUCH different than genetic code. That's why it's faulty to assume programmer, just because we call it code.

What would you call the 'programming' that determines controls every life shape, size and function?

Even science has to call it 'Code', otherwise they would appear ignorant to even the simplest observer.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It's not technically programming, it's all physical mechanisms. I really don't see your point here. If you have personal beliefs about what cell complexity means and determines that's fine. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, but it's not a foregone conclusion as you seem to be indicating and it's certainly not as simple as, "scientists call it a code, therefor it was programmed". Not all codes are parts of programs. People can find codes in anything, really. People create information based of that. It doesn't change the fact that you are completely assuming its origin, when there are conflicting science experiments.

Peter Vlar made some great points above and I can't help notice you didn't respond to any of them as well. You seem to just be hung up on the semantics of terminology used, which really gets us nowhere.


edit on 8 9 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


It's not technically programming, it's all physical mechanisms. I really don't see your point here.

You're blinded by dogma. Tell me what happens in a womb isn''t 'technically' programmed.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
You're blinded by dogma. Tell me what happens in a womb isn''t 'technically' programmed.


Tell me that it is. I don't prove negatives. You are being extremely vague and simplistic here.

What dogma? I'm referring to actual science experiments. Things that are testable and repeatable. DNA having a programmer is not testable in the slightest.

Again, all I'm saying is the book is very much still open in regards to whether or not life was designed. Believe what you want, I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm just saying it's still very much unknown.
edit on 8 9 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Look, even the simplest of life reproduction cycles-- cell division, is a very specific 'process'. Which can't go wrong in the slightest or the cell either won't divide or will divide and cease to be reproductive, due to mutations, a negative outcome.

One tiny seed can produce a giant tree, a single cell can develop into ten tons of elephant, because ten bazillion such divisions went exactly according to 'plan', process, program.

You go right ahead and keep denying whats right in front of your eyes. Especially today, when we have the instruments to record the process of a single cell dividing. 30 seconds into here:

edit on 9-8-2017 by intrptr because: youtube



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs

Look, even the simplest of life reproduction cycles-- cell division, is a very specific 'process'. Which can't go wrong in the slightest or the cell either won't divide or will divide and cease to be reproductive, due to mutations, a negative outcome.


And right there, your entire view of such important life's upon itself. See, wencan track genetic mutations quite easily. As you keep pointing out, we've got some amazing technology these days so we are able to track cell line mutations and whether they are harmful, Beneficial or negative. Guess what? Most mutations are negative. For someone who wants to be up to date on all the modern technology, you purposely ignore any modern science that doesn't go along with your magical programmer hypothesis (which isn't even a hypothesis in the scientific sense because it isn't testable).


One tiny seed can produce a giant tree, a single cell can develop into ten tons of elephant, because ten bazillion such divisions went exactly according to 'plan', process, program.


Incredulousness and awe do not a programmer make. You want to believe that life is programmed, which is your prerogative, but you do so to the exclusion of all testable science in favor of something that can't be tested and has no standards to measure against all because you're hung up on semantics and the name "genetic code" while ignoring all rationale as to why it is called such.


You go right ahead and keep denying whats right in front of your eyes. Especially today, when we have the instruments to record the process of a single cell dividing. 30 seconds into here:


The video is cool from a biological perspective but is just smoke and mirrors pertaining to the topic being discussed. It doesn't add any evidenc to support your position.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


For someone who wants to be up to date on all the modern technology, you purposely ignore any modern science that doesn't go along with your magical programmer hypothesis (which isn't even a hypothesis in the scientific sense because it isn't testable).

I didn't say mutations weren't happening or that they weren't negative. They happen even more nowadays because of the toxins in the environment and the decay of the Genome. We are devolving, not getting better.

Preservation of species is favored by the programming, I don't see elephants, giraffes or lions changing, at all. They were made as well they could be.

You want evolution, testable progress, follow mans inventions, like flight for instance. From kitty hawk to jumbo jet, that is evolution, by design, by engineers.

Still can't hold a candle to the simplest of life forms. Life is different, life processes aren't random generated.

Of course thats just my own opinion. But go ahead, hang science around your neck like a mill stone, again.

Ignore the double helix of DNA code.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join