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.

 

It just doesn't happen

page: 22
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I was wondering if you missed this? It says everything I don't
articulate as well as Stephen Meyer.




edit on 1-9-2020 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids

And I think it's clear which is more credible.


Both are easily credible and both are impossible to discuss since we can not prove or disprove something that would be outside of the universe. Your view that complexity theory/Chaos theory can not create what we have is kind of moot.



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Xtrozero

I was wondering if you missed this? It says everything I don't
articulate as well as Stephen Meyer.





Did you notice I didn't say Darwinism, but said evolution. Darwin was a good start, he got a lot wrong, but somethings right and way advance for his time. What we know today is crazy advance to anything Darwin did. It would be like Darwin was 1+1=2 and what we know now past Darwin would be like theoretical physics in comparison.



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I thought it was a good debate where the proponent of
design wasn't hung out to dry in theology. I realized that
you never used Darwinism. I just can't even repeat a lot
of what was said very well but I did understand. And do
understand that evolution has come far from Darwinism.



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Xtrozero

I thought it was a good debate where the proponent of
design wasn't hung out to dry in theology. I realized that
you never used Darwinism. I just can't even repeat a lot
of what was said very well but I did understand. And do
understand that evolution has come far from Darwinism.


You miss understand me... It is a fantastic subject and it is hard to pull the theology part from some intelligent design part.
A good book to read or listen to is called What Darwin Didnt Know: The Modern Science of Evolution. It goes into what we have learn just in the last 10 years with DNA and Genome advancement that might give you some understanding about life and why life can go from a simple single cell to us. In your posts you talk about that maybe we are so advance that only intelligent design could have done it and this book will help you understand why intelligent design is not necessary needed. I'm not saying that intelligent design could not happen, just that it was not needed.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




m not saying that intelligent design could not happen, just that it was not needed.


I gotchu

Well damn nice conversation if I'm ever asked. I can only hope it wasn't
excruciating for you. Wish that most of my conversations went so well. The book
recommendation. When people mention a book to me I never even acknowledge
they said anything. I'm gonna check this one out and see what happens. Hell I ain't
skeered or nothin. If I make it thru the first chapter with a book, I usually finish it.
All that means is, I've read a lot of first chapters. lol
edit on 2-9-2020 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 08:08 AM
link   
We know in theory that intelligence exists.
if all thing are energy, the perhaps the concept of potential intelligence should be considered.




Potential energy is as real as kinetic energy. The idea is that the energy gets stored in the fields that produce the force, and that the energy is transferred between kinetic energy and field energy



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The debate would be intelligent design vs random act that work around basic rules/law/actions that a random universe might have.


Would you agree that intelligible laws insist upon a Law-maker?

These intelligible laws perpetuate all of creation in a consistent equilibrium which allows life to continue seamlessly.



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

More bs. Nature tends toward equilibrium. That is when the vector sum of all forces is equal to zero. The laws of nature are the balance of nature, or homeostasis. No creature from outer space or from another dimension is required. It's the natural state of this universe.

Crap in, crap out = YOU.



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

More bs. Nature tends toward equilibrium. That is when the vector sum of all forces is equal to zero. The laws of nature are the balance of nature, or homeostasis. No creature from outer space or from another dimension is required. It's the natural state of this universe.

Crap in, crap out = YOU.



Yikes settle down girl. Most biochemical laws can be simplified as intermolecular forces. This is what controls enzyme kinetics as well as keeping the cellular membrane intact, among many other functions. These forces have precise consistency that allow biological life to maintain homeostasis

Surely these laws were created by a Law-maker... or at the very least, it is astronomically more probably that intelligible systems are derived from intelligence rather than unintelligence. Just like it is astronomically more likely that a Ford truck came from a Ford factory, rather than random chance putting it together. You can go ahead and believe in your unintelligent design, but know it is remarkably the less probable option
edit on 2-9-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Would you agree that intelligible laws insist upon a Law-maker?

These intelligible laws perpetuate all of creation in a consistent equilibrium which allows life to continue seamlessly.


We name forces and limitations laws, doesn't mean they were intelligently created...Is water freezing at 32F some intelligent creation or just a temperature that water freezes? Who knows...is 32F magical or just a temperature.

I say laws to suggest that the universe is not 100% random, it is random actions brought about by set rules that cages that randomness in. End result is humans were a random act of the universe, not some intelligent act even though life on earth in general does follow set rules.

I may be wrong, but there is no reason that intelligent design is needed for humans to exist. Maybe a universe needs intelligent design to happen to blend those laws just right, but as I said before that is something we can not know, so it is hard to debate faith.


edit on 2-9-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
so in other words you or I are not intelligent, it's just the result of random chemistry.
I don't buy it.

for me, that a solar system will settle into harmonic resonance, and produce human intelligence, is indistinguishable from the 'intelligence.' of God.

edit on 00000091053910America/Chicago02 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Surely these laws were created by a Law-maker... or at the very least, it is astronomically more probably that intelligible systems are derived from intelligence rather than unintelligence. Just like it is astronomically more likely that a Ford truck came from a Ford factory, rather than random chance putting it together. You can go ahead and believe in your unintelligent design, but know it is remarkably the less probable option


The word law means nothing in this case...As example it is said that if the gravitational constant was slightly more or less then the universe would be totally different and life as we know it would not be here. Is that some magical intelligent design number or just what our universe has...much like water freezing at 32F and not 33F or 31F...

In the end it got to be something and the universe reacts to that something in whatever direction. Our universe reacted and that result is what we see today.

As to the Ford...it was randomness if you start that journey 1 million years ago.... You want to take a finish produce and say INTELLIGENT DESIGN while ignoring all that went into that finish product that was random to happen. We do know that there is intelligence in our universe so that is a natural aspect of our universe too, but that like the word "laws" both are a human construct to describe something that just happens to exist in out universe.

So then carry that all forward and suggest that there is some top intelligence I would say maybe...but should we really care? If there is some top intelligence then humans and that Ford would still be a random event within a universe designed by some intelligence. To suggest humans were created directly by intelligence design goes away from the universal creator that baked the laws of our universe to work as it does to more of the theological version of God that made humans special.

So in the end IF intelligent design made the universe then the flow of that universe would still be random actions caged within that intelligent design. Now if you want to suggest that intelligent design controls every atom in the universe to the point EVERYTHING at the atomic level works in a predetermined path event for the life of the universe then good luck. That is kind of like what people are suggesting to say humans were predetermined...to do that one would need to control every atom in the universe forever...kind of a sad existence for us I would say. I'm not sure if that is how far you want to go with it all as in if you click your fingers right now that would be predetermined 15 billion years ago, so zero freedom of choice and your path good or bad would be predetermined. Kill me now...lol


edit on 2-9-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Surely these laws were created by a Law-maker... or at the very least, it is astronomically more probably that intelligible systems are derived from intelligence rather than unintelligence.


Prove the probability - mathematically.



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: rom12345

Consider that if you do not teach a human how to speak, it won't learn and probably will die rather young.

Part and parcel of being a social animal really.

Our knowledge is built around a base that we have gained over the span of recorded history.

Its data and information gleaned through trial and error which we pass down the line to our children.
edit on 2-9-2020 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: rom12345

so in other words you or I are not intelligent, it's just the result of random chemistry.
I don't buy it.

for me, that a solar system will settle into harmonic resonance, and produce human intelligence, is indistinguishable from the 'intelligence.' of God.


What is intelligence? Is a Dog intelligent, a fish, a worm, a plant? Is the reason the Cheetah is the fastest animal because of intelligent design, or that there just needs to be something that is the fastest or the smartest.


edit on 2-9-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

They are not only intelligent to varying degrees, as far as I am concerned they are manifested spiritual entities.
In my view the Universal purpose is to provide the physics and chemistry for the evolution of spiritual forces
There are things that can be subjectively experienced, that provide very compelling evidence that what we consider consciousness and intelligence, go way further than we can fathom.
I certainly value the scientific method and science, but it has come to my attention that physical reality is only the tip of the ice berg, so to speak.

It seems impossible to share this subjective evidence in scientific terms, only psycho-spiritual terms, if even.
What is most certain to me, is that human intelligence is only a tiny fraction of a cosmically larger one, that lies outside space and time.

edit on 0000009014091America/Chicago02 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: rom12345
a reply to: Xtrozero

They are not only intelligent to varying degrees, as far as I am concerned they are manifested spiritual entities.
In my view the Universal purpose is to provide the physics and chemistry for the evolution of spiritual forces
There are things that can be subjectively experienced, that provide very compelling evidence that what we consider consciousness and intelligence, go way further than we can fathom.
I certainly value the scientific method and science, but it has come to my attention that physical reality is only the tip of the ice berg, so to speak.

It seems impossible to share this subjective evidence in scientific terms, only psycho-spiritual terms, if even.
What is most certain to me, is that human intelligence is only a tiny fraction of a cosmically larger one, that lies outside space and time.


Could be, not something debatable in any case. It could also just be our minds tricking us into experiencing something that is actually totally different than reality. Our reality starts and stops within our brains, kind of a scary thought at times. Do we really know what our brains are telling us is truly real?

Your manifested spiritual entities might be as real as what the authors created with The Games of Thrones, or Star Wars. We live much of our time in the abstract world, you are there right now on your computer, and even though we can create reality from a totally abstract ideal it doesn't mean all abstract thought will be reality, such as I suggest with the two stories. Your computer is a perfect example of totally abstract ideals turned into a reality and it is things like that which has grayed out the line between what we see as true reality and what we see as abstract that is only in our heads.


edit on 2-9-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2020 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345
I think an unguided Universe is where the data leads — a Universe of meaningless stars, planets and galaxies all going about their business with no endgame in mind. Galaxies collide, nature consumes itself, innocent children die, evil are allowed to prosper.
But consider how all the atoms that currently make up you existed before you were born. BEFORE you were born, the odds that these individual atoms would one day combine to make up you are astronomical. So astronomical as to be considered impossible. And yet, here you are. Just because something is extremely improbable doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Extremely improbable things happen every moment of every day.

One mistake here is in thinking there is a “correct sequence.” A correct sequence implies that evolution was shooting for a particular goal, and this is no more true than your atoms shooting for the goal of creating you. There is never a goal, there is only what results, and the result is always extremely improbable at some level.



posted on Sep, 3 2020 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The word law means nothing in this case



It does though. Predictable patterns in physics are called laws because they are defined as a system of rules. Rules require something intelligent to enact them, especially if they are upholding intelligent life.
edit on 3-9-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join