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 - Missing designer

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Where did the designer come from? All these fine folk's discussing ID feel there's no ... need ... to discuss the designer? Why? Seem's our fine designer has gone missing.

The two most popular view's I've seen for this designer is some supurnatural diety or an ET.

For the supernatural designer, did he need to be designed as well? Where did he come from?

For ET, did he need to be designed as well? If no, and the answer is through what scientist's are saying for ourselve's, then why so much doubt that our own universe is just... natural.

What evidence exist's for a designer that does not rely upon the lack of knowledge in science today? I've asked this numerous time's ... no answer. Every attempted answer given, still relied upon science not having all the answer's. My answer to those people. Well duh.

So where's the designer. How'd he design? Why'd he design. What's the purpose of just making a universe. There must have been a reason behind it. Be it supernatural or ET. I'm abit more interested in the ET idea. Why design a physical universe when designing a simulated computer model is so much more economical. Are we talking super rich ET's here? What theories can we come up with for why ET would feel the need to design and contruct a universe, and what possible ways could ET enter that universe in order to create the spark of life on one tiny insignificant planet in that universe ... Even if the odds for such a thing happening are nearly zero.




posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Well, you know what's going to happen...

In short order, the ID supporters will tell you that the theory does not need to address the designer. Though true, I think it is a weak cop out. You bring something huge into science (since ID IS science
), then say nothing else about it. Come on. The designer is a BIG thing to just mention in the name of the idea and nowhere else. Still, this is what is to follow...



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I disagree with the ID circle of super friends. The designer is a very big part of IDism. Just as scientist's, as you noted in the other thread, have a description of the process and how it possibly works, the ID circle of super friends lack this same model. They just run off and cry foul play when posed with where did the designer come from. This whole nonsense of not needing to proved a working descritipion is nothing more then a scapegoat tactic because they know damn well the theory has nothing to stand on.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
I disagree with the ID circle of super friends.


I think that all the proponents of Intelligent Design should now stand up and take a bow for this new title that is awarded us.



Thank you...thank you...

...From all of us...

Isn't it amazing that Evolutionists/Darwinists avoid ever having to address the fact that they have no solid evidence that Homo sapiens evolved from single-celled life forms?

That the only evidence they have to support Darwinian speculation is mutations within microscopic organisms?





posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The theory has changed quite abit since darwins day. This thread isn't about that anywas, so please try and stay on topic.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Isn't it amazing that Evolutionists/Darwinists avoid ever having to address the fact that they have no solid evidence that Homo sapiens evolved from single-celled life forms?

That the only evidence they have to support Darwinian speculation is mutations within microscopic organisms?




well, even if it was the only evidence, which it is not, then ToE has more actual evidence than ID...



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Simulation argument ... ET aspect of ID, if they're running a computer simulation.



www.simulation-argument.com...

A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.


IDK... just seem's highly improbable that a civilization would reach such maturity and technology and the drive to create a simulated universe. The requirements alone for such a computer is extremly high. Just doesn't seem like a worthwhile economical choice for ET to just run a simulation of this kind. Even with the technology and know how to develope the software, I'm sure they could develope something quicker and less of a resource hog that will arrive to the same result's of the simulation. Even today we simulate nuclear explosion's without simulating the entire planet and universe.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
We're the designer. Well, maybe not specifically you or me. If it was, me, there'd be a much better design. But we know consciousness directly affects things on a subatomic level, which later expands to a larger, macro universe. (I think about typing the letter "G," and sure enough, it gets typed somehow. There's the proof. Mind controls matter.) Anyway, you or me or Stephen Hawking or some intelligent squid baby in another galaxy cooked up this galaxy by imagining it in the past.

So a batch of us, maybe all of us, imagine things and move things back and forth through time, and as a result we have a universe we can live in, where atoms don't spontaneously disintegrate, where light travels at a speed we can measure, etc. We've "bootstrapped" ourselves into this universe, and maybe someday we'll shut it all off.

No need to bring "God" into the argument. Whatever "God" is supposed to be.

I like the idea that we created the universe because at least we can be reasonably sure we exist. Cognito ergo sum, and all that good stuff.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   


I think about typing the letter "G," and sure enough, it gets typed somehow. There's the proof. Mind controls matter.


I'm sorry, but even IDer's have done better then this. lol


I know this isn't part of the thread topic, but we'll entertain the thought since the IDer's don't wanna play and we'll assume we're the IDer itself. Do you have any hard evidence rather then weak evidence you posted here for US being the designer?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I won't say whether I believe in ID or Evolution (which I feel is very incomplete)...But let's say it all started with the big bang. What was before that? Physicists/Scientists say its irrelevent, which is a cop-out.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Wierd... I've never heard them saying it was irrelevent. In fact, if you'd like I can dig up some link's showing how scientist's are trying to figure out how the pre big bang party went down. The only thing I've seen being said as irrelevent are the IDer's not needing to discuss the designer in IDism. Shame really, I'm still gun-ho for discussing more about ET being the designer.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by daboga75
I won't say whether I believe in ID or Evolution (which I feel is very incomplete)...But let's say it all started with the big bang. What was before that? Physicists/Scientists say its irrelevent, which is a cop-out.


it's not that it's irrelevant, we just do not know.

With current knowledge, above one planck time (10-43s) is our limit. When we have a solid theory of quantum gravity, then we may go even further back.



[edit on 6-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   


But let's say it all started with the big bang. What was before that? Physicists/Scientists say its irrelevent, which is a cop-out.

The problem always boils down to the properties you attribute to time. You assume that there had to be some kind of straight-line, forward-moving cause and effect.

How about this? What if not only was there absolutely nothing prior to the Big Bang, what if the Big Bang actually moves "backward" through time as it does "forward," and that the approximately 13 billion years we use as a convenience or a reference is actually a kind of arbitrary point?

Or... how about every time you try to imagine what happened before the Big Bang, you actually move the Big Bang backwards in time to accomodate your imagination? Since you can't imagine "nothing," and since time has no meaning anyway in nothingness.

Hey, maybe you're the one who is creating/created the Big Bang by thinking about it. Hmmm... How does it feel to be the Creator of the Universe?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   


I'm still gun-ho for discussing more about ET being the designer.

If some contemporary UFO / Close Encounter accounts are to be believed, there could be some aliens out there who have very strong psychokinetic power. My mind can move my hand, which can move a cup on the desk. These little critters can just move the cup without touching it. And they use this extra ability to organically link in with their UFOs.

That kind of power would naturally have a lot to do with them being able to control what happens to us here on Earth, but also with the creation of the universe, as well. And, certainly, any such creature would be looked upon by our ancestors as a God, or gods. And they would have the ability to easily guide the evolution of our species on this planet by making regular visits and modifying out genetic code. They would be helped by relativistic alterations in their perception of time during travel. They could make small tweaks, fly home, then fly back and several thousand or tens of thousands of years would have passed by on Earth. Then they could make another little tweak. And keep repeating the process until they get what they want. It might only take a few weeks for them, while a million years pass for us.

The proof of that pudding would be found with evidence of "obviously" artificial tampering done in our DNA. The problem arising there, of course, would be deciding what was obvious. Because retroviruses can also radically alter DNA, possibly leaving traces that look "odd" or "unnatural."

But then, maybe the aliens would use viruses to make their controlled evolutionary changes. Viruses are barely considered to be alive as it is. Maybe they're little nano-machines introduced into the atmosphere every once in a while, intended to guide humanity (or whatever species they can find) toward spiritual and intellectual enlightenment, which will then continue to spread through the universe until everything in the universe becomes alive and aware of itself, like the living cells in a body joining together to create a larger, all-encompassing intelligent entity.

Oh, now there are a lot of ideas all crammed together. Aliens as an agent of the universal super-intelligence that doesn't exist yet. Evolution as guided by environment and artificially produced alien viruses. Alien consciousness guiding the selection and adaptation of intelligent species.

Eh, what a load of crap.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join