Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof of ID the World is Looking For

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychedeliack
Not if you exercise that part of your thought.

[edit on 4/26/2008 by psychedeliack]



I agree. Thats why I prefer meditation or mystical experience over laboratory experiments or going to church.




posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Sky that's what I was getting at. Science is inherently limited by their units of measure and what is observable or quantifiable. When it comes to something eternal or outside of time, the method breaks down.

Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems of mathematics as expanded by Philosopher John Lucas predict such failures of formal logical systems (like science).



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Yes, I understand what you are getting at and agree.

I am trying to put it in words that astyanax might comprehend...since his mind has been circling around this for as long as I remember him posting on ATS.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


So in order for YOU to pass your personal judgement on the reality of God's creation, you frame the questions, provided a specific number of questions, and the method of how all are to answer to satisfy your skepicisim?



This is like describing color to a blind person. No matter what words are used the true understanding is impossible.

ID, is all around you, in every aspect of every element that allows you to live. Plant, animal, water, air mixture, food, gravity, placement of earth in the solar system, temperature range, etc, etc, etc.........

No matter how much someone tells you to touch, feel, smell, taste, without eyesight to "see" the colors arounf you, you are still blind.



1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3



2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.



answer these issues...............then we will get to the others........



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
What kind of evidence are you looking for? In order to prove intelligent design or creationism, we would have to prove the existence of a designer or creator. Without doing that, no evidence put forth will ever be accepted by the materialist.

We could show (and have) the complexity of nature, organisms, and our universe and the improbability of such order existing by itself only to be told it was a process of natural selection over the span of eons, big bangs, and chaos turning into order in a very beneficial coincidence.

We could point out (and have) the Cambrian Gap/Explosion to show what appears to be a sudden appearance [creation] of complex creatures in the geological record only to be told the evolutionary process sped up during that age.

We could debunk or refute (and have) transitional fossil evidence only to be accused of being 'anti-science' or 'creationist crackpots.'

We could show (and have) the fact there are theistic evolutionists who actually believe evolution is the process God used to create the variety of life we have on earth due to DNA being an intelligent code only to have them laughed at for violating Occam's Razor or have the 'God of the Gaps' argument brought up.

It all goes back to, as Heliosprime stated, trying to describe color to the blind. If you do not believe in a creator or designer, then there is really nothing in this world that would convince you of creationism or intelligent design. Even theistic evolutionists who believe in the accepted science of evolution are dismissed. Therefore, even having a 'design/creation method' that science agrees with is still ignored because the they reject the creator and designer.

If we came up with 50 different and all equally plausible explanations as to our origins that were backed up with solid evidence it would still not be enough to prove those explanations were the method used by a creator designer to someone who believes in neither type of being.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


So in order for YOU to pass your personal judgement on the reality of God's creation, you frame the questions, provided a specific number of questions, and the method of how all are to answer to satisfy your skepicisim?

Not really. The steps I describe and the way I frame the question are my ignorant attempt to outline the way in which a hypothesis is put forward, tested experimentally and thus either proved or disproved. As I said in the OP, it isn't very original. In fact, it's pretty standard.

I'm afraid none of the stuff you posted qualifies, though. They are just criticisms of the intellectual consensus. They don't prove God Did It.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


What kind of evidence are you looking for? In order to prove intelligent design or creationism, we would have to prove the existence of a designer or creator. Without doing that, no evidence put forth will ever be accepted by the materialist.

You don't have to prove the existence of a creator to prove intelligent design. It's exactly the other way round.


We could show (and have) the complexity of nature, organisms...

We could point out (and have) the Cambrian Gap/Explosion...

We could debunk or refute (and have) transitional fossil evidence...

We could show (and have) the fact there are theistic evolutionists...

What is on offer here is a way out of that bind. Stop trying to disprove evolution -- which is what all of the above is really an effort to do -- and prove intelligent design. The stepwise process in the OP is just a rough guide to how you might set about it -- setting up a hypothesis and testing it by experiment.


If we came up with 50 different and all equally plausible explanations as to our origins that were backed up with solid evidence it would still not be enough to prove those explanations were the method used by a creator designer to someone who believes in neither type of being.

But you see, 50 different and all equally plausible explanations of our origins are not proof of intelligent design, so they are not what the world is looking for.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Evil Genius
 



"" Funny, I always thought science was the search for the truth. ""


Yeah, it would seem that way. But could that fact cloud the fact that the elite within that system of club members [ scientists ] are actually doing something else? Could that be? Is that possible? [ do you recall the famous quote of Cicero, about the enemy within, disguised as one of us, but in fact is one of them?]

How many of them members of the scientific community are members of secret societies? Do any of us know?

My point is, to not assume that just because they [ the so-called respected scientists ] are in the NEWZ, that we all just give them a pass on their credentials and also assume their motives are pure as well. On the contrary, since we know the mass media is infiltrated with spin doctors and omit pertinent facts and fall short of asking all the questions they should most of the time, they should be under the most suspicion of all.

I can't address the question in the way the OP has framed the question, but I am thinking of another way to address the subject, but from a different angle.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Really quickly:

1). I stand by my statement about proving a creator/designer first because no matter what method or evidence that is brought to the table, those who refuse to believe in a creator/designer will reject the evidence. Really think about that one for a moment. This argument was actually brought up by an evolutionist on my evolution thread and I have to admit it made some sense.

2). I'm not trying to disprove evolution in this thread. Did I break down any of its arguments or evidence? I do not believe so. Furthermore I mentioned theistic evolutionists and even how evolution explains some of the difficulties mentioned by its critics.

3). I agree. 50, 100, or 500 rock solid methods verified by science explaining our origins would still not make a dent when it comes to trying to convince someone who denies a creator/designer. They would worm their way around it any way they could- the same thing I see them doing with the current secular explanation for our origins. Those methods would never been seen as a method used by a creator/designer but instead an act of happenstance by an apathetic universe. Which brings me back to point one: Proving a creator/designer.

Of course, us believer/spiritualists already know/believe. When I say 'prove a creator/designer,' I'm talking about it being a necessary step to convince the materialist or secularist in the realm of science.

I stand by everything in my first comment up above and don't really feel like you refuted anything I said, to be honest, but simply skipped around it. Good thread, through. I've been keeping up with it although I am not a fan of ID.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

Thank you for your contribution, AshleyD, even though it did not contain any suggestions for a scientific proof of ID.

Now, would anyone who has a suggestion about how to prove ID experimentally please step forward?



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I have a suggestion... prove a designer.


Seriously, though. Again, I'm not a supporter of ID (just helping as it is an interesting subject) but what about DNA? I've seen some say DNA itself is a 'code' used in a 'design' that must have required a 'designer.' In my opinion, DNA appears to serve as the blueprints of an architect.

And here is something I found just now in the introductory paragraph on Wiki (convenient reference):


Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.

en.wikipedia.org...


Evolutionists may say it was the result of natural selection, mutation, and adaptation but when I see a code, my instincts tell me someone wrote that code- especially one so complex.

So, we have the design right there in front of our scientific faces. Now we need to, again, prove the designer for the hardcore skeptic.

EDIT: I deleted the last 2/3's of this comment and decided to only leave it as the above. I'll save the rest for rebuttals. hehe

[edit on 4/28/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
You can say patterns happen by accident in nature like snowflakes, but DNA is much more than a pattern. It also represents more than just a set of plans. The fact that all living things share this identical molecule is evidence that all living things share a common designer. Moreover the fact that DNA is coded in a common "language" of sugars, phosphates and bases. This common language or way of coding the life form is the strongest evidence in and of it self. If you saw a scratched cave wall, with a letter 'A' you would recognize the letter from the alphabet and realize it had an intelligent source. The language of DNA implies the same.



The structure of the DNA molecule itself is identical among all living things, from an amoeba to a 150-ton whale, from a blade of grass to a redwood tree. It consists of sugar, phosphate, and four nitrogen bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). A sugar, phosphate, and base together constitute a nucleotide. The four bases are paired on the DNA molecule, and in a very specific way: A always with T and G always with C. Connecting the base pairs are alternating sugar and phosphate units, forming a structure that resembles a ladder. The ladder is actually three-dimensional, though; it takes the form of two strands twisted into a long spiral - the famous "double helix."

How is it that this molecule consisting of only six basic components (four bases, a phosphate, and a sugar) can contain all the information required to make almost a million types of animals and nearly a half-million species of plants?

Let us think of DNA as the totality of information needed to reproduce any organism. It is, in a manner of speaking, a language. Now consider: If we compiled all the information available to us - everything that has been discovered and created since man began to wonder about himself and the world around him - we would have an unimaginably vast body of data. But this superabundance of information would be useless until we imposed some order on it, much as the Dewey decimal system categorizes the books in a library, or the rules of grammar render language intelligible. By a similar process, all the random information in the DNA molecule is made specific and meaningful through the very precise ordering of the A, T, G, and C bases.

www.accessexcellence.org...



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

Thank you for your post, Bigwhammy. I see you have no experimental proof of intelligent design to offer, merely speculation about how something as wonderful as DNA could have evolved by itself.

Just to remind everyone, the topic of this thread is a proposal to place 'intelligent design' on a scientific footing by selecting a natural phenomenon -- any phenomenon will do -- and devising an experiment that eliminates all other explanations for it apart from intelligent design.

If you haven't got any proposals, please don't spam the thread and drive the discussion off topic. There are plenty of other threads on which to express yourself as you wish. Thank you again.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I'm not being rude when I say this, but clearly you don't understand the scientific method. First find evidence for ID, and that will suggest that there's a designer. If your evidence is actual scientific evidence (as in others can verify it, and others can repeat your experiments with the same results), then science will indeed be on your side. You seem to think that people have done just that in the past and the evil cabal of atheist scientists have ganged up and sworn to ignore it. Well, the truth is no IDer has ever managed to provide actual evidence for it.

So, until that happens, ID is a philosophy for religious study, and evolution is a scientific theory. The two should not be in the same classroom, let alone in the same book. Obviously unless the book was called "Sound Scientific Theories and Baseless Assertions Made By Bronze-Age People Who Didn't Know Any Better", then it'd be ok



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
YEC has, from a scientific viewpoint, been disproved several times. ID, on the other hand, has not, and as I understand it it may be compatible with science; so long as it doesn't attempt to refute solid evidence. It seems reasonable to me that evolution may have had a "guiding hand" (that doesn't mean I support the idea, just stating possibilities), but still, that's nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument.

Which again brings me back to why I have no issue with Deism.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   


Thank you for your post, Bigwhammy. I see you have no experimental proof of intelligent design to offer, merely speculation about how something as wonderful as DNA could have evolved by itself.


No it's not experimental proof its even better real world proof. The fact that DNA is written in a symbolic language and language implies intelligence is evidence not speculation. Of course it didn't evolve by itself, nothing did.


edit: sorry I see you're not really interested in truth or reality in this thread but experiments. I apologize for bringing reality into your evolutionary fantasy scenario.

[edit on 4/29/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No it's not experimental proof its even better real world proof.


...experimental proof would be real world proof
verifiable, real world proof



The fact that DNA is written in a symbolic language and language implies intelligence is evidence not speculation.


...
there's 0 causation in there.



Of course it didn't evolve by itself, nothing did.


pure, faith-based statement that goes contrary to any evidence...
you have to at least accept micro evolution...



edit: sorry I see you're not really interested in truth or reality in this thread but experiments. I apologize for bringing reality into your evolutionary fantasy scenario.


you should also apologize for being very rude and quite ignorant with this part.

experiments are reality.
and you should double check as to who's persisting in fantasy.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


edit: sorry I see you're not really interested in truth or reality in this thread but experiments. I apologize for bringing reality into your evolutionary fantasy scenario.

No need to apologize. You are one of ATS's most notorious creationists. When you post in this thread without taking up my challenge, you further prove the intellectual bankruptcy of the intelligent-design movement and reinforce the case against teaching ID in schools.

So thank you (yet) again, Bigwhammy. You've been my best ally in this thread so far.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by AshleyD
 

Thank you for your contribution, AshleyD, even though it did not contain any suggestions for a scientific proof of ID.

Now, would anyone who has a suggestion about how to prove ID experimentally please step forward?


Wow I got to say first that I agree with you completely just need to re-word if I may,, I agree whammy IS one of the most famous creationists on ATS and he couldn't have been without your help asty. I am sure I speak for whammy when I say he would be grateful to accept this esteemed honor among ATS most famous among anything. lol

As absolutley un necessary as it seems to be, why ANYONE would require a supposed "scientific" explantion proving what is so obviously all around us will always have me wondering whether I am mentally challenged or they are blind. I know I can see, that much I know. If one cannot see the why everything that is would take planing BEFORE it was to be in existence then attempt to explain that to someone who wants to NOT understand it. Well I got to ask all of you who have tried,,

Why would anyone bother?

Ashley is right, it's a

waste of effort

and time

- Con







[edit on 30-4-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul



experimental proof would be real world proof
verifiable, real world proof


You are wrong and you are not understanding his post, if there was a word you need to look up in the dictionary, one word mis understood could throw off your whole understanding of what he meant.

Since I don't know as of yet which part of whammys post you didn't get Ill just suggest you re-read it. I remember you were having trouble understanding the word "Kinds" in your thread regarding a simple verse given in genesis.

I took the time to explain the meaning of the word "Kinds"

I sure hope that helps.



there's 0 causation in there.



How do you know that please share with us how you know this?



pure, faith-based statement that goes contrary to any evidence...


Is there a problem with that? what would it be other than just merely some angst one has against religious implications to the idea that we may have been the product of a creator. Otherwise it certainly seems we have some kind of prejudice in the way of our "pure" objectivity I am sure you'll disagree as you always do but upon breaking down the premise of your statement without an explanation to the problem with religious implications and justifiably put forth as the impartial assesment of someone without an axe to grind then by all means share with us what motivates such a premise for your disagreement share with us please.





you should also apologize for being very rude and quite ignorant with this part.


Im still waiting for my apology when I was kind enough to offer yet as ashley pointed out and has asked you on many occasions why you have trouble offering what seems to be so easy for you to demand of us.

You have yet to even answer her much less me.



and you should double check as to who's persisting in fantasy.




Ouch!!! I guess that makes you even with whammy then eh

so much for apologies needed I guess


- Con






[edit on 30-4-2008 by Conspiriology]






top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join