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.

 

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 25
1
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonN
It comes down to this: there are two kinds of people.

One kind are people like me. When we see a chair, we know its a chair, and we also know that chairs are objects made by humans. At no time in my life have I ever inferred that, any more than I ever "inferred" that I have a pair of legs. And when I see chair-like objects I recognise them as such. I don't do any "inferring" in that case either.

Chairs are not questionable objects. Things like arrowheads, early hominid tools, suspicious deaths, code are.


Inferring is what I do when I realise from certain clues that a burglar broke into my house, but I don't do that when I identify a category of object. If I encounter a novel kind of artefact, I know it is an artefact (rather than a lifeform, or any other thing) from the context it is introduced in.

Based on what. If you have a pile of rocks and in those rocks is a single arrowhead, what allows you to infer that it is in fact an arrowhead, and not just some uniquely shaped rock?


Archaeologists are also in this group of people. They assume they are excavating a settlement when they find items that look like pottery or tools, based on the paradigm cases they already know of.

Do you think that all archaeological artifacts come from settlements? If you do you're sorely mistaken. Many native american artifacts aren't found in settlements, they're just found in areas where native americans were. They didn't necessarily leave behind organized settlements. Early tool using hominids were most certainly not leaving behind any settlements. Finally archaeological artifacts aren't limited to things that are obvious like chairs, hammers, bricks, etc. You must know this. If you don't then you shouldn't be commenting on archaeology.



If they found a genuinely alien item, they would not be justified in concluding anything about it.

Answer my question about the arrowhead in the rocks.


In the same way, SETI is a hugely expensive waste of time since whatever unusual signals we find, we will never be justified in concluding they are of alien origin until we have direct, identifying contact and we know that certain items are symbols of communication.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But your opinion certainly goes against what a significant portion of scientists think, and certainly against the beliefs of probably 90% of the ATS community. But like I said you're free to think whatever you want.


There's another, smaller, group of people, which contains William Dembski and mattison. Whenever they encounter a novel object

What do you mean by novel object?


in the absence of the contextual cues and implicit knowledge that us normals use instead.

Answer my question about the arrowheads.


Yet if they helped themselves to that, they wouldn't need to do a "design inference" in any case.

And what exactly is that supposed to even mean?



God alone knows why they bother.


Mostly, I don't believe the major questions re: biological origins are anywhere near solved.




posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I don't know about a panda's thumb but I know the Scaphoid bone in MY thumb is pretty bad design...always the first thing to break, and what about my metropolitan eagles? If they were designed to only hunt in one biome than they wouldn't be evolving to hunt in my biome(da city) would they? And I think we male humans shouldn't have been designed with nipples...nipples on men whats that all about, real intellignet... I guess the designer never figured I'd like to go bodybording for once without sandblasting my unecessary protuberences off.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
I don't know about a panda's thumb but I know the Scaphoid bone in MY thumb is pretty bad design...always the first thing to break, and what about my metropolitan eagles? If they were designed to only hunt in one biome than they wouldn't be evolving to hunt in my biome(da city) would they?

I don't know what city do you live in? How often do you find any bird flying into glass? I mean it's not like pigeons are dropping all over NYC.


And I think we male humans shouldn't have been designed with nipples...nipples on men whats that all about, real intellignet... I guess the designer never figured I'd like to go bodybording for once without sandblasting my unecessary protuberences off.


What are you... grasping at straws here? Anything you can think of to prove your point?

My goodness man, make an effort to learn something for yourself before you just throw it out there.

Male nipples are a byproduct of development. Human fetuses are exactly the same until about 14 weeks in development. It isn't until then that sex differentiation takes place. The basic body structure, including the nipples, has already been built. It because of the way the fetus develops.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
but why design a male fetus that way? why not just be differentiated from the get go. And yeah pidgeons drop out of the sky in manhatten all day from running into objects. Ask anyone who lives there. And what about the eagles they do live in my neighborhood have great vision and don't crash into objects while flying. Why screw the pidgeons and not the eagles in the vision department. BAD creators BAD! prejudice against the pidgeons how dare they!!! Basically because things don't evolve are created the way they are by some grand designer we were intended to have nipples in which to evicerate while bodybording, and eagles can't be flying in my neighborhood because they weren't designed to hunt out side of their own bioms and don't evolve as a way of adapting to their new environment even if its a behavioral adaption which frequently creates physical adaptation. Or were we created to evolve, but then again why. The universe was intelligently designed why would it fluctuate if it were engieneered, why even throw it into the equation. My car is a car not a transformer. Although wouldn't it be awsome if it were. Hey maybe the designers of the universe haven't thought of something that cool yet, Again once we humans get big and powerful enough to boss around the universe we are so gunna kick galactic Ayse...go humans and their ability to outsmart the creators..whoohoo we rock!



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
but why design a male fetus that way? why not just be differentiated from the get go.

Who knows, but how would this make the design somehow better?


And yeah pidgeons drop out of the sky in manhatten all day from running into objects. Ask anyone who lives there.

Ummmm... I was speaking from experience. I lived in Alphabet City from like '91-'93, and there were not dead pidgeons everywhere from running into things.


And what about the eagles they do live in my neighborhood have great vision and don't crash into objects while flying. Why screw the pidgeons and not the eagles in the vision department.

Pidgeons don't hunt from the sky, and thus don't need the acuity that eagles do, you'll note that despite the fact that eagles are significantly smaller than humans, their eyes are the same size. If it's not necessary, why have such a massive eye, and I don't know what part of NYC you lived in, but there are not pidgeons dropping everywhere from running into stuff.


BAD creators BAD! prejudice against the pidgeons how dare they!!!




Basically because things don't evolve are created the way they are by some grand designer we were intended to have nipples in which to evicerate while bodybording, and eagles can't be flying in my neighborhood because they weren't designed to hunt out side of their own bioms and don't evolve as a way of adapting to their new environment even if its a behavioral adaption which frequently creates physical adaptation. Or were we created to evolve, but then again why. The universe was intelligently designed why would it fluctuate if it were engieneered, why even throw it into the equation. My car is a car not a transformer. Although wouldn't it be awsome if it were. Hey maybe the designers of the universe haven't thought of something that cool yet, Again once we humans get big and powerful enough to boss around the universe we are so gunna kick galactic Ayse...go humans and their ability to outsmart the creators..whoohoo we rock!


Are you ever going post a significant criticism or is this ridiculousness the most we can expect from you?

[edit on 20-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
isn't it rediculus to assume that the universe was designed by a creator, and yeah pidgeons still are falling out of the sky in places like manhatten. You've never seen a pidgeon run into a solid object and kill it's self? And since when do pidgeon have eyes the size of humans? Damn mutant pidgeons. Maybe those are the ones your looking at that never seem to do anything stupid with their apparently ineffective vision. And what about my eagles. How could their unadapting, designed bodies adapt to my neighborhood? I think your grasping at straws when you have to assume that things were designed when they most likely,probably, weren't. And all your evidence amounts to just random data that doesn't actually support the premis of your argument. Flooding me with no point data isn't going to convince me either. So yeah I'm going to goof around and make silly comments just to push your buttons its for my amusement you see and everyone else watching. You've been had!!!



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
yeah pidgeons still are falling out of the sky in places like manhatten. You've never seen a pidgeon run into a solid object and kill it's self?

Never seen it even once... seen plenty of street kids killing pidgeons, but no pidgeon suicides.


And since when do pidgeon have eyes the size of humans? Damn mutant pidgeons.

Whoops brain got ahead of my fingers meant to say EAGLES. Fixed in edit.


And what about my eagles. How could their unadapting, designed bodies adapt to my neighborhood?

I don't know what your neighborhood looks like, but eagles weren't diving into our yards despite the presence... despite the close proximity to the worlds largest municipal park, which contained at least 3 nesting pairs at a couple of times during the year.


I think your grasping at straws when you have to assume that things were designed when they most likely,probably, weren't.

I assume nothing. You on the other hand with your "most probably weren't," are.


And all your evidence amounts to just random data that doesn't actually support the premis of your argument.

What evidence? All I posted was a paper or two that explained why the eye was built the way it is. They fit perfectly well within the context of the conversation we were having about bad design. How did they not? You wouldn't know anyway, since you didn't read 'em.


Flooding me with no point data isn't going to convince me either.

Certainly not if you don't read it.



So yeah I'm going to goof around and make silly comments just to push your buttons its for my amusement you see and everyone else watching. You've been had!!!

Well... you're not really pushing my buttons. But ATS members take note: BASSPLYR is here for his own amusement... not to seriously discuss anything, he has no interest in serious discussion... just silly comments.

You know the forums have a name for that: Troll.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I've been called a Hobbit before but not a Troll, and isn't it yet again another assumption to believe that I'm abusing ATS and trolling through all the blogs looking to amuse myself. Nope just you, You strike me as the kind a person who everybody knew how to antagonize as a kid in school, pushing your buttons, but you would keep taking the bait everytime. Besides I'll go out on a limb here and make an assumption of my own-most of the people at ATS who are reading this ARE entertained by my ongoing dialog with you and would agree with alot of what I am saying right now. Go humans, down with poorly thought out designs of the creators. No seriously why do you think that there is a creator and that everything was designed by an intelligent entity. Thats the real question.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Oh no you di'ent!!! calling me a troll. that gets three snaps. I'll discuss seriously with you why you are so certain that there is a creator who intellignetly designed everything. Wheres that proof, other than assumptions. JonH was right.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
You strike me as the kind a person who everybody knew how to antagonize as a kid in school, pushing your buttons, but you would keep taking the bait everytime.

Well whoever told you that you could get a good impression of someone via an anonymous on-line forum was lying to you.


Besides I'll go out on a limb here and make an assumption of my own-most of the people at ATS who are reading this ARE entertained by my ongoing dialog with you and would agree with alot of what I am saying right now.

Perhaps. But I know for a fact that a good percentage of the ATS staff not only likes me, but appreciates my effort enough in this forum to give me regular applause. And with respect to whether or not everyone agrees with you... I couldn't care less. I'm not here because I need or desire people to agree with me... in fact... I sometimes prefer the opposite.


No seriously why do you think that there is a creator and that everything was designed by an intelligent entity. Thats the real question.

The thing is, I've never stated this is what I believe. I never stated I think there is a creator, nor have I stated I think everyone was designed by an intelligent entity. Everyone of course operates under this assumption, but I've not stated these are my personal beliefs.

My personal interest in this issue is actually much more related to scientific freedom than anything else. I think scientists should feel free to pursue evidence wherever it they believe it leads them. Currently ID based scientists don't have this freedom, at least not without fear of negative repercussions. Science isn't about upholding paradigms, it's about elucidating the truth... whatever that truth might be.


Oh no you di'ent!!! calling me a troll. that gets three snaps. I'll discuss seriously with you why you are so certain that there is a creator who intellignetly designed everything.

Well I didn't actually call you a troll... I said there is a name for the behavior you were exhibiting.


Wheres that proof, other than assumptions.

Origins theories aren't subject to 'proof;' they're origins ideas, and by definition, they're not provable. If you are interested in data that the ID movement believes supports the a design based hypothesis, then I would direct you here

Take your pic of papers, and we can discuss the scientific merits of it here. Of course this would require you to actually read one of the papers.


JonH was right.

I beileve his name was JonN.


[edit on 20-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
well I agree with you for once about science eliciting truth. We have something to agree on. But seroiusly where is there any evidence for ID. I do have an open mind, even though you may not agree with that statement, so whats the best argument in your mind for ID. And sure the scientists have the freedom to invetigate ID but not with other peoples money and time. Have someone fund a serious experiment with ID and I'll explain to them how they just wasted their money. Cause they aint going to proove ID. I can tell you like to argue with people who disagree with you, so maybe your playing devil advocate but if thats the case why waste your time arguing with me? Where is there any proof for ID/Creationism, other than Sacharia Sitchin's account of human creation and the bibles genesis chapter?



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Yep you confuse Eagles with pidgeons, but I put the h infront of the n on johN cause I'm dyslexic-real sensative there.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
well I agree with you for once about science eliciting truth.

I think the goal of science is to seek the truth... though I don't believe science is the only source of truth.


We have something to agree on. But seroiusly where is there any evidence for ID.

I referred you to some ID based papers in my previous post, encouraged you to read them, and we can discuss the scientific merits here if you wish. Click the link in my previous response to you.


I do have an open mind, even though you may not agree with that statement, so whats the best argument in your mind for ID.

The most intriguing thing in my own mind... complex primary metabolism, photoautotrophic nutrition, and biological energy transduction.


And sure the scientists have the freedom to invetigate ID but not with other peoples money and time.

Not without serious consequences to their career.


Have someone fund a serious experiment with ID and I'll explain to them how they just wasted their money. Cause they aint going to proove ID.

And this is compatible with an open mind?


I can tell you like to argue with people who disagree with you, so maybe your playing devil advocate

Nope.


but if thats the case why waste your time arguing with me? Where is there any proof for ID/Creationism,

I think I've offered you evidence alleged to support ID above in my previous post. If you want evidence alleged to support Creationism visit this site



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Here's where you could help me. I think the difference between creationism and ID is that creationism surrounds the notion that a god created us consistant to the holy writings. ID states that we were created by either a god in the same fashion or not as described in the holy writtings but also leaves the possibility open for aliens to have created us al la sacharia sitchin style or perhaps in a panspermia experiment or something. Am I basically right? Tell me the differences so that I can better dichotimise them. While I await your reply I will be busy looking at internet porn. I await your reply.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Also as I am one of an open mind could you briefly explane the three subjects you think is proof of ID. I would research it but alas I must look at as much porn as possible before I leave work for the day and go home to where I have no internet. To be honest the biological energy transmutation thingy ( the last part you brought up) sounds like it could be interesting.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
The complex Primary Metabolism isn't that describing our ability to process and create amino acids and things of that sort? hows that proof of ID. I don't remember my biology courses the best but isn't that what that describes?



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
phototrophic nutrition sounds a whole lot like photosynthesis to me-thats what I would infere from a grouping of words like Photo Trophic Nutrition. Is that what your talking about again hows a chemical process proof of ID.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
tell me about biologic energy transduction. It sounds interesting but again maybe not exactly proof of ID in any way.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Finally found a writer who shares my view, a very bright guy IMO.





Evolution is entirely neutral on the question of the existence of a higher power, and it fits with many of the differing views of creation. While many opponents see belief in evolution as somehow “anti-God,” it is no more anti-God than belief in gravity. Whether you believe in a higher power or not, you should believe in evolution, because to do otherwise is to deny the evidence all around us.

Evolution isn’t part of some distant past, discernible only in ancient bones. It is a critically important biological mechanism that all Americans need to understand.

From a public health perspective, we need to understand evolution because it plays a role in the generation of drug-resistant bacteria. Evolution is what could trigger bird flu to make the leap to a more contagious human form. In agriculture, evolution has allowed insects to develop widespread resistence to many pesticides. These are real things, not speculation from God-hating scientists, as evolution opponents would have us believe.

Evolution debate shows future of science is tenuous in the U.S.




posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Here's where you could help me. I think the difference between creationism and ID is that creationism surrounds the notion that a god created us consistant to the holy writings.

Well... pretty much... I personally prefer to call belief in Genesis account as being Creationism, with a capital C. Within this particular area there other sub-categories of Creationism... Young-Earth and Old Earth. Despite popular notions. Old Earth Creationism has a longer history. The concept of the 6000 year old Earth is a relatively recent development in terms of Creationist ideas.


ID states that we were created by either a god in the same fashion or not as described in the holy writtings but also leaves the possibility open for aliens to have created us al la sacharia sitchin style or perhaps in a panspermia experiment or something. Am I basically right?

Kind of. All of those ideas, could potentially under the broad heading of ID, but ID specifically points out the question of the designer is not currently something that can be answered scientifically. ID is focused on building hypotheses from a design perspective. That is it infers design, and would ideally use this inference as a basis for hypothesis formation, testing only the hypotheses from the design perspective, not addressing the source of design. Though I can imagine that were someone to propose a way that it could be tested they wouldn't be opposed to it, but I don't see how that could happen.

In all fairness though, I've not seen the ID community engaged in any 'wet-lab' experiments thus far. They certainly can be performed. Hell, I've offered testable ID hypotheses in these threads myself. So far though, other than some statements re: 'secret ID research,' the science community has yet to see any hypotheses proposed and actually tested.


Tell me the differences so that I can better dichotimise them. While I await your reply I will be busy looking at internet porn. I await your reply.

I think that is it in more or less of a nutshell. My personal perspective on ID is somewhat different than the mainstream IDists though. For example, I don't believe ID should ever be legislated into science classes or anything like that. If it wants its place in the science texts, it has to earn it... like most, if not every other scientific idea.

In fact, I see the push to get it into schools as being damaging for the movement as a whole. If it is legislated into school, it will always be viewed as the rich kid whose dad bought his place on the team.


The complex Primary Metabolism isn't that describing our ability to process and create amino acids and things of that sort? hows that proof of ID. I don't remember my biology courses the best but isn't that what that describes?

Sort of but not exactly. All living things need two things to survive, specifically, reduced carbon, and reduced nitrogen. Reduced nitrogen is a significant problem.

While there is plenty of nitrogen in the atmosphere, there is very little reduced nitrogen. Most living organisms can only use reduced nitrogen. The natural processes that do reduce nitrogen do it so slowly as to make it irrelevant in the context of a biological organism. Bacteria have a pathway that reduces nitrogen, which of course consists of proteins, etc. In short there is an interesting conundrum biological organisms need reduced nitrogen for the synthesis of the two most critical biological polymers, nucleic acids and proteins.

There is no origin of life scenario that doesn't utilize either one molecule or the other. But at the same time, the pathway that is responsible for fixing nitrogen requires a source of prefixed nitrogen. So there are in fact two problems that need to be addressed. In any case, the pathway is a multistep ATP dependent pathway, that is dependent on it's end product product to function.

Carbon fixation suffers from more or less the same problem, but perhaps more so, as Carbon fixation actually requires many more players than does nitrogen fixation. There are more natural sources of reducted carbon, however the degree to which the pre-biotic atmosphere was reducing, is a hotly debated topic.

Again they're not 'proof' as origins ideas aren't subject to 'proof' in the traditional sense of the word. Certainly, if a certain abiogenetic pathway is discovered, it would certainly eliminate the need for ID, but we could never say for sure that life arose via any particular pathway.


phototrophic nutrition sounds a whole lot like photosynthesis to me-thats what I would infere from a grouping of words like Photo Trophic Nutrition. Is that what your talking about again hows a chemical process proof of ID.

It's related to the concept of Carbon fixation. But yes more-or-less the mechanism behind photosynthesis. To make a long story short, the process requires multiple specific cofactors involved with energy transduction that must be located in not only a very specific location in the pathway, but with additionally placed with extremely low anisotropy. That is not only is the specific location important, but in fact the specific angle of the cofactor within the protein. A move of even an angstrom will render photosynthetic electron transport dead.

The process is also dependent on it's end products for function. And this is related to biological energy transduction as well. BET, is more or less a fancy way of referring to energy movement and energy harness on biological membranes. All mechanisms of BET not only exhibit highly specific proximal requirements, but all are dependent on their own end products.

Ignoring the IC nature of the pathways for a moment, it's sort of like saying that reduced Nitrogen and reduced carbon come from reduced nitrogen and reduced carbon, it doesn't make any logical sense.

That's sort of it in a nutshell. Without any complex technical description. Of course I did just drink several glasses of wine.




top topics



 
1
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join