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.

 

If ID and creationism were given funding and grants...

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by LuDaCrIs
 


I think the reason why evolution gets into the mix is because it's like this. Let's say a bunch of young teenagers are standing around a new car they love, after a day or so they see that the top is down. In awe they question how the change occured. One says that it merely adapted to the sun, and another said it was evolving into a convertable and sited as proof other cars he had seen that were hard tops and are now convertables. But then another said that none of those theories could be proven without knowing the source of the car. One replied that he heard it arose from the junk yard of scrap metal and just appeared one day, but another said, no, there has to be a creator. So they argued because the one said, if so, that creator cannot be seen or heard so he can't possibly exist, there is no way to prove it. But the other said that the car can't just come from nothing, everything has to start somewhere. Since the car can't be greator than the creator there has to be a mind involved, it is too orderly to just happen that way. Well... the arguement never ended because the one who didn't believe in a car builder couldn't see him and so would not ponder the idea to be taught as an alternative to the other. In the end the science lacked true meaning because the students were never allowed to call into question one theory against another.

So I think that's how evolution gets into the mix.




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
In taking on the task of "how to do it" let me try..

There is a way in science that can find the answer. Rather than say or prove what something is, rather prove what it is not leaving the most likely possibility. In that light, I would say that the universe is not chance or random because it is too orderly. I would also conclude that it could not bring itself into existence on it's own and from nothing at all. To that end I woud then ask from what it must come from. Now the laws of dynamics are evident so whatever the source is, it..

A. cannot be matter.
B. cannot be energy.
C. cannot be part of it the universe itself.
D. It cannot be bound to universal laws.
E. It must be greator than, and outside of the universe itself.

I am now left with the possibility of another force that cannot be energy or matter but yet is. and a force that is greator than and outside of the univesre itself. I will call this force "spirit" and "entity" and "mind"

By process of elimination I have thus cocluded that the only logical and reasonable explaination is that the universe is intentionally made by the will and force of a spiritual entity not consistent with matter or energy.

Therefore there are the following types of force applied to the universe.

1. matter
2. energy
3. spirit


In the alternative, the evoltution of the universe, I would come into more questions than likely answers. Like a dog chasing it's tail I would never overcome the observation of the object itself and will be left in a circle of confusion. I may make assuptions than can never be tested, but it will not be satified without testing it in light of other possible theories and ideas where science can be used to test it.

So what do I say then,

1. The universe cannot be created by intelligent design because..
2. The universe cannot bring itself into existence from nothing because...

The two really do need to be taught side by side in this light and tested one against the other.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Sure looks like philosophy to me...

Lets try a different approach:

We have the fact that human chromosome 2 appears to have been formed by the fusion of two chromosomes in a previous primate ancestor. How would ID explain it?

To explain the evidence, we have Ken Miller, a theistic evolutionist, this should give an insight into the scientific method and the power of prediction:



Your mission FA, if you accept it, is to explain this evidence in a logically coherent manner using intelligent design. This post, and possibly my head, will self-destruct if responded to with 'that's the way the designer made it'.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
What the evolutionists are seeing here is what they wish to see to prove to themselves that they finally answered the "God" question. But, hate to blow this away so quickly. but what they are seeing is merely human chromozone 2.

1. Was the chromozone taken from a human?
Answer: Yes.
2. Is it a chromozone?
Answer: Yes it is.

Analysis: A chromozone taken from a human, must be that of a human. Vast and seemingly simarlarities exist thoughout nature but are nothing really. If I see a pancake that looks like Mother Teresa does that make it proof that Mother teresa gave birth to it, or that something was taken from Mother Teresa to evolve the pancake into her appearence? No, of course not. So they are just looking like fools trying to assume what just isn't there.

It may look like two parts of a chimp chromozone, but it's really just human chromozone 2. Sorry...



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Eh? So a chromosome with centromeres and teleomeres in places they shouldn't be is like...just normal?

we know it is a human chromosome, no-one said it wasn't. But it has characteristics of being formed by the fusion of two chromosomes.

It just happens to look like that?

Chance? A coincidence?

Is that the best you can do? Is this the extent of ID's explanatory abilities? Evolution predicted this before we tested for it. If we didn't find it then we were going to be in a difficult position.

----------------------------------

Ok, we'll try redundant pseudogenes now.

Humans have two copies of the 21-Hydroxylase gene. One is active, the other a pseudogene. Evolution suggests that at some point, the gene was duplicated, and eventually one was mutated. Both humans and chimps have the exact same 8 base deletion in the same pseudogene which destroys its normal function. We have the same dysfunctional gene, in the exact same place, with the exact same mutation.

How does ID explain this? This is just one of many.

Then we can move onto endogenous retroviruses.

These are pretty random insertions into the genome over time by viruses in the environment. They tend to show phylogenetic relationships - inserting over time and shared by closest relatives in the same chromosomal locations in a nice nested heirarchy, as predicted by evolution.

for example, for primates:


Lebedev et al., 2000

Thus, all primates have the first two ERVs. But the next two are only shared by old-world monkeys, gibbons, and apes. Then the next three, only by gibbons and apes, and so on, and so forth. Fitting perfectly with previous determinations of phylogeny. A molecular confirmation of previous understanding. A prediction verified.

This has also been found in cats. And I'm sure we will find it in others as we sequence more and more species.

How does ID explain this?

I'll ignore transposons, cytochrome C, and other stuff, this should do. Show us the explanatory power of ID. Remember, evolution predicted these relationships before we found this evidence. If it showed otherwise, we had problems.

Science puts its neck on the line making falsifiable predictions...

[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


PRAISE SCIENCE!
HALLEJUHA!

keep preaching that good science, keep showing the light of truth in the darkness...

at this point, i really can't add anything more accept support because you're doing such a great job. i'd give you a way above for that if they still existed



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Heh, yeah, it's a different approach, as I don't think we'll see a coherent scientific prediction and experiment based on ID from FA. So, we can all be amazed by the explanatory power of ID instead, and compare it to the approach of evolutionary biology, consistently placing its neck on the block by making falsifiable predictions.

Hopefully, Lude is happy with this approach. When we have some answers, I'll ask FA how he would use £500,000 to support such explanations scientifically, and produce predictions which allow us to learn new stuff about nature. I expect it won't be too intellectually fulfilling.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Your comparing apples to oranges. Just because something may look like something else doesn't make it so. Human genes are human, and ape genes are ape pure and simple. It was the way God made it "each after it's own kind". There is no connection, only wishful thinking.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Don't you think you giving yourself away by advocating atheistic "preaching"? Some here don't realize that you're not here to discuss and debate but to sway and convert. I mean, it's getting lonely out there as more and more atheists decide God is real. I was an atheist once myself, but there came a time when I put away such wishful thinking and looked at the truth.

You cannot get something from nothing at all... case closed.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
It was the way God made it "each after it's own kind". There is no connection, only wishful thinking.







Honestly, that is pretty sad. You clearly show you have nothing. No surprise.

"It was the way god made it"

The ultimate non-answer of the intellectually vacuous.

Why is it like A not B? 'duh, it's the way god made it'

Why is it like B not A? 'duh, it's the way god made it'

I think I best keep the £500,000 to myself, it would just be spent on bibles and other useless stuff.

Does anyone have some science to bring to the discussion? So far, I think the only ID-based hypothesis/experiment raised was the one I posted from the much missed Matti...

[edit on 12-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Don't you think you giving yourself away by advocating atheistic "preaching"? Some here don't realize that you're not here to discuss and debate but to sway and convert. I mean, it's getting lonely out there as more and more atheists decide God is real. I was an atheist once myself, but there came a time when I put away such wishful thinking and looked at the truth.


it's called parody
learn about it

i was actually advocating the spread of science, regardless of religion. i know plenty of religious people that accept evolution.



You cannot get something from nothing at all... case closed.


nobody is advocating such a position



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I like the exploding head thing... it's well done.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Let me ask a question and then after the response, maybe I can get my thoughts looked at in a scientific way so that you'll understand that I am useing science.

Please, give me what you think the true definition of the word "science" is. Secondly, how does one use the term to apply it in such a way as to find answer to a hypothesis. Thankyou.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Let me ask a question and then after the response, maybe I can get my thoughts looked at in a scientific way so that you'll understand that I am useing science.

Please, give me what you think the true definition of the word "science" is. Secondly, how does one use the term to apply it in such a way as to find answer to a hypothesis. Thankyou.


Ok, at least this will help the discussion and get everyone on the same page.

When I say science, and I hope everyone else can agree to this, but please correct me if I am wrong (a bit like science in itself), I think of the scientific method.

What is the scientific method?

In a general sense, it is way to investigate certain observations or phenomena and/or changing existing knowledge. It is based on collecting observable, empirical and measurable evidence which are subject to specific principles of reasoning which is based on falsifiability. Before and experiments are done, a hypothesis is formulated to explain the phenomenon. Scientists then propose experiments which test the hypothesis. These tests must be falsifiable and repeatable. Eventually, if there is enough support and observable evidence, it can be accepted as a theory.

Here is a nice summary, although maybe a little too simplistic:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Things to remember:

- A theory is has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, while a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

- A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.

- One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis

- A theory has to be able to predict outcomes in future tests and experiments.

- Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.



I hope this is correct and would love some input from others on what science is.

Hope this helps Far Above.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Its been a couple of days since my last post, so:

Was that good enough?

What are your thoughts?

From Above, where did you go?


Or, maybe everyone went away for Christmas holidays? Happy holidays to all if thats the case.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by LuDaCrIs]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by LuDaCrIs
 


no, i've been here, i just haven't had anything to say as the answer to the thread is so obvious, ID and creationism wouldn't have anything to test.

it's quite the testament to the lack of argument they have when the only people that support the hypothesis are a small segment of the population with incredibly similar beliefs.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join