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 a conspiracy.

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by R13sg0
 


"Science and a creator go hand in hand. It is absolute nonsense that we have to live with the fact that some things are simply unexplainable. That is just the mind construct of a evolutionist to avoid thinking about a Creator."

Why does science need a creator, please? A bald statement of such is unsupported. "Faith" is not support. You're personal opinion is not support. It's simply you saying what you wish to be true.


Please don't just drop into the discussion to attack me on something that is a side-track from my original post.
Science needs a creator because science has come very close to one. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion.
Now please, if you want to discuss this further with me, get into the points mentioned in my original posts.




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by R13sg0
 


"Science needs a creator because science has come very close to one. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. "

Have you, perhaps, read the OP for this thread?

Science is in no need of a creator. The need for a creator is exclusive to the religious mind.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

You mean the gradual evolution of brains?


There is no proof for evolution of soft tissue. Other then size. The statement that consciousness has not developed but was there from the very beginning fits within the facts of evolution evidence.



What, mind? In the end your mind is just a sum of biochemical reactions taking place inside your .. We can certainly observe this and alter it by introducing new chemicals to our brains or inhibiting activity with others etc.


No. The observer effect is when a particle comes out of its wave state when it is observed. No matter the location, time or distance.




That's not what evolution says.


That is my point exactly.



1. It does not have the exact same DNA as every other cell in your body as not all cells in your body even have DNA to begin with.


All cells (EXCEPT gametes) that do have a nucleus have the same DNA (ignoring mutations).
DNA in the nucleus is "wrapped" around histones. These histones may be acetylated/deacetylated or methylated. These different modifications to the histone (along with tons of other things) essentially "turn off" or "turn on" certain genes. This is what allows cells to have different functions even if they have the same DNA.



2. The cell in your finger knows its place because it was born of identical cell. Not all genes are active in all cells. Not going to explain this further, but this is how the cell "knows".


Knows it's function. For example skincell, bone cell. Not it's place. Like i said it is not for noting that morphogenesis is widely accepted.



3. All this can be and has been explained decades ago already. You didn't pay much attention at school, did you?


This does not proof validity of any subject. The bible is 2000 years old. It does not proof it's validity.



Funny, that's exactly what you did.


No that is not what i did. I don't challenge fossil finds. I challenge the conclusions based on fossil finds.



I suggest that you read something else other than the Bible and fundie propaganda websites.


I never read ID websites and i never go to church. I'm not a Christian. I support ID for my own reasons and i stated them above. I found all this myself from my own research into various subjects, after finding some papers from F.A. Popp.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The only people who support ID are creationists, overt or covert. Scientists find evolution works to explain so many things that it's quite unlikely that it will be supplanted. However, science an open-ended system. So a new system could be found. ID, on the other hand, is a closed-ended system. You have to accept that the "creator" did it, and not question why he/she/it did it. That's where ID will ultimately fail, and why scientists ignore it now. It's not science, it's faith.


Other then this being a weird out of the blue statement. Let me get into this anyway because it is wrong on many levels.
There are an awful lot of people that support ID and are not in any way affiliated with a Church. It is you, the evolutionist, that fail to recognize this and always points the discussion into directions that are social, cultural and non-scientific.
Like i said, when science find a theory that includes design and a designer then science will not seize to exist. The very principal of science is unbiased towards any outcome. It is the principal that is open ended, not the theories.
Theories are there to pick a set of facts and identify it with certain phenomena. In this case the phenomenon is design and it is a competing theory with basically the same set of facts.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0Other then this being a weird out of the blue statement. Let me get into this anyway because it is wrong on many levels.
There are an awful lot of people that support ID and are not in any way affiliated with a Church. It is you, the evolutionist, that fail to recognize this and always points the discussion into directions that are social, cultural and non-scientific.
Like i said, when science find a theory that includes design and a designer then science will not seize to exist. The very principal of science is unbiased towards any outcome. It is the principal that is open ended, not the theories.
Theories are there to pick a set of facts and identify it with certain phenomena. In this case the phenomenon is design and it is a competing theory with basically the same set of facts.


You haven't been following the conversation, obviously. The "awful lot of people" you mention, who are they? Because ID gets very little support outside of the fundamentalist community.

You are an adherent of the ICR dogma, no matter how it was programmed into you.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0

Originally posted by rhinoceros
You mean the gradual evolution of brains?

There is no proof for evolution of soft tissue. Other then size. The statement that consciousness has not developed but was there from the very beginning fits within the facts of evolution evidence.

What are you talking about? The evolution of soft tissue? What does this have to do with consciousness?



No. The observer effect is when a particle comes out of its wave state when it is observed. No matter the location, time or distance.

Which observer effect are you talking about? Are you talking about some quantum mechanics concepts? What does this have to do with evolution?



That is my point exactly.

Your point was to lie?





1. It does not have the exact same DNA as every other cell in your body as not all cells in your body even have DNA to begin with.

All cells (EXCEPT gametes) that do have a nucleus have the same DNA (ignoring mutations).

Yes but not all cells have nucleus.



DNA in the nucleus is "wrapped" around histones. These histones may be acetylated/deacetylated or methylated. These different modifications to the histone (along with tons of other things) essentially "turn off" or "turn on" certain genes. This is what allows cells to have different functions even if they have the same DNA.

I know but that's not the whole story. You might be interested in studying for example transposons.





2. The cell in your finger knows its place because it was born of identical cell. Not all genes are active in all cells. Not going to explain this further, but this is how the cell "knows"
.

Knows it's function. For example skincell, bone cell. Not it's place. Like i said it is not for noting that morphogenesis is widely accepted.

What's the difference? Your cells don't literally know their places. What would be the use of that?





3. All this can be and has been explained decades ago already. You didn't pay much attention at school, did you?

This does not proof validity of any subject. The bible is 2000 years old. It does not proof it's validity.

Too true. It's the predictive power and all the experiments and observations and such that make the theory the best explanation.



No that is not what i did. I don't challenge fossil finds. I challenge the conclusions based on fossil finds.

You're an expert on the field or something? Good at morphology perhaps? What makes you challenge the conclusions withdrawn?



I never read ID websites and i never go to church. I'm not a Christian. I support ID for my own reasons and i stated them above. I found all this myself from my own research into various subjects, after finding some papers from F.A. Popp.

I've studied quite a bit of ID, but I rejected it as I found it to be just nonsense. At the moment they don't have a single good argument going for them. That flagellum thingy was good, but they got owned in like a week.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

You haven't been following the conversation, obviously. The "awful lot of people" you mention, who are they? Because ID gets very little support outside of the fundamentalist community.

You are an adherent of the ICR dogma, no matter how it was programmed into you.


I think it does matter how it was programmed into me.

And i can't give you a list of people. So if you wish you may ignore that statement or think about this: If Any scientist (especially teachers) criticise evolution in a way that may implicate design, they will be fired. There is no criticism allowed, and you prove that point yourself.

Now can we get back to my original post?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I have my own idea of the conception of it all.

It combines my religious experiences and education, alternative theories (Big Bang, Evolution, Darwin, etc..), and research into this argument and other research, some non-related on the surface, but one could imagine all sorts of fantastic occurances preluding this place in linear time.

But weighing these positions aganst each other, I have been only able to conclude that there is no smoking gun proof and any position or belief is as valid or invalid as the next.

Arguing evolution, creation, and all it involves, no one can deny that the question of how a creator could have no beginning or ending, how a big bang from nothingness. The hard questions are all unanswered due to humans not able to rationalise or verify anything to do with how all this came from nothing or some God that always existed.

So, the creationsists and evolutionists are relative in lack of any tangible proof and use nothing other than hypothesis to advocate their views and beliefs.

stalemate..



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
What are you talking about? The evolution of soft tissue? What does this have to do with consciousness?


Well it was you that brought in the brain factor. The brain is soft tissue. There is no factual findings of "gradual evolution of brains".

There is no evidence that consciousness is linked to the brain. On the contrary, it seems to be operation beyond time and space. (Look at P.E.A.R research on random number generators and the observer effect in quantum mechanics. These are both measurable.

So to answer your question, the brain interacts with consciousness, but does not come from the brain as evolution principles suggest. Thus evolution-theory can not explained consciousness, and therefore evolution-theory needs revision.




Which observer effect are you talking about? Are you talking about some quantum mechanics concepts? What does this have to do with evolution?


I'm sorry. I'm talking about a part of the uncertainty principal. Yes it is a quantum mechanics concept. And it does as i stated before. It brings matter into state.

It has to do with evolution that consciousness (the only observer we know) is creating matter. Creation is a reality. Matter could be created into life by consciousness.



Yes but not all cells have nucleus.


Then it has no value for this discussion now has it. Let's drop this.




I know but that's not the whole story. You might be interested in studying for example transposons.


This virus of the genome has nothing to do with the discussion. And every ID'r would point to degeneration. And get answers back like, but with enough time eventually ..... I don't want to get into that discussion with you. It was about location, let's get back to that.



What's the difference? Your cells don't literally know their places. What would be the use of that?


My cells all fall into place don't they? A bone cell is a bone cell and still it forms a femur with joints. Like i said, To become a bone cell a part of the gene is turned on or off. Then the cell has to know what bone it is in order to get a form. The only thing the cell knows is what it is. There is no mechanism you can point to that let him know where it is, what bone it is in and where in the bone it is located. Still All the bone cells are able to form a bone. Know where it starts and where it stops. There are more then 200 different bones in your body. And it's only an example.



You're an expert on the field or something? Good at morphology perhaps? What makes you challenge the conclusions withdrawn?


I use my brains.



I've studied quite a bit of ID, but I rejected it as I found it to be just nonsense. At the moment they don't have a single good argument going for them. That flagellum thingy was good, but they got owned in like a week.


When you are looking for evidence of ID in fossil finds and lack of proof in evolutionary paths, you will find a very hard time convincing others. Because they took the same evidence to build their case.
They claim a monopoly of truth because of this over the Mechanism, origin of life, existence of a deity and conciousness. That of course is unscientific and very religion-like.
Even with all the evidence of evolution there still may be another mechanism then mutations and selection. There is still no proof for this mechanism. There is also no proof for the origin of life. There is no proof that a deity can not exist. And it is proven that consciousness reaches far beyond the body.

Yes other scientific interpretations DO include creation at some levels, a designer even.

There are two options:
Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved. Explore one and call it truth isn't science any longer. It's religion. Right now we have both sidesfighting



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0
There are two options:
Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved. Explore one and call it truth isn't science any longer. It's religion. Right now we have both sides fighting


Science by it's definition relies on experiments which confirm theories, and then predictions are made as a result of that, which again, if they prove them self accurate, confirm theories even more...

So, how exactly do we scientifically (see above) "explore" that supernatural element you talk about ?



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0I think it does matter how it was programmed into me.

And i can't give you a list of people. So if you wish you may ignore that statement or think about this: If Any scientist (especially teachers) criticise evolution in a way that may implicate design, they will be fired. There is no criticism allowed, and you prove that point yourself.

Now can we get back to my original post?


You might want to consider outgrowing your programming.

I see you're toeing the "Expelled" line now. That babble about "scientists" being fired for criticizing evolutionary theory has been thoroughly debunked case-by-case. Google "Expelled Exposed" if you have the courage.

And I encourage debate on this topic, that's why I started this thread. The more the IDers trot out, the more opportunities to point out where they're wrong. They co-operate in their own debunking. It's not fair, but it's effective.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
Arguing evolution, creation, and all it involves, no one can deny that the question of how a creator could have no beginning or ending, how a big bang from nothingness.


No it does not. We are arguing here how life on this planet came to be as it's. The question of how the planet came to be does not concern evolutionists. That's the stuff of physics, not biology.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement

Originally posted by R13sg0
There are two options:
Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved. Explore one and call it truth isn't science any longer. It's religion. Right now we have both sides fighting


Science by it's definition relies on experiments which confirm theories, and then predictions are made as a result of that, which again, if they prove them self accurate, confirm theories even more...

So, how exactly do we scientifically (see above) "explore" that supernatural element you talk about ?


You've got it wrong. We can explore it exactly the same way as we do the evolution theory now. Remember it can't be anything that isn't based on the same facts. Saying that you can't explore one way implies that you can;t explore the other. Both are theories, unmeasurable ideas based upon measurable experiments, findings and predictions. Both can predict.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by R13sg0I think it does matter how it was programmed into me.

And i can't give you a list of people. So if you wish you may ignore that statement or think about this: If Any scientist (especially teachers) criticise evolution in a way that may implicate design, they will be fired. There is no criticism allowed, and you prove that point yourself.

Now can we get back to my original post?


You might want to consider outgrowing your programming.

I see you're toeing the "Expelled" line now. That babble about "scientists" being fired for criticizing evolutionary theory has been thoroughly debunked case-by-case. Google "Expelled Exposed" if you have the courage.

And I encourage debate on this topic, that's why I started this thread. The more the IDers trot out, the more opportunities to point out where they're wrong. They co-operate in their own debunking. It's not fair, but it's effective.


My programming is fine and it's growing al right.

I'm sorry i threw the expelled line. But it is basic understanding that ID isn't welcome in ANY form. We can both agree on that.
Expelled exposed has a few cases (6) and fails to show the original documents. I don't find it very convincing. I neither find Expelled very convincing in these cases either. It shows nothing. Although the overall message in expelled is true. There is no room for ID in any form. But expelled really fails going into facts.

And other then side tracking you don't show debate on my original post. I would really like that. So let's get back to that.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0And other then side tracking you don't show debate on my original post. I would really like that. So let's get back to that.


To avoid confusion, are you referring to the first post you made in this thread? Just want to derail any misunderstanding preemptively.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
Arguing evolution, creation, and all it involves, no one can deny that the question of how a creator could have no beginning or ending, how a big bang from nothingness.


No it does not. We are arguing here how life on this planet came to be as it's. The question of how the planet came to be does not concern evolutionists. That's the stuff of physics, not biology.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by rhinoceros]


"The question of how the planet came to be does not concern evolutionists"

And that validates my position.

If there is one thing I despise, it is taking things out of content.

Arguing how life on Earth began, ignores the hard questions completely. If there is no understanding of all that comes before life on earth, then any speculation that attempts to account for life, evolution, creationism, or other is a blind attempt to decipher mysteries without any foundation other than man's imagination.

All this theorizing and debate is but a house of cards that crumbles when disturbed by the slightest of breezes.

When the foundation is discovered or understood, then one may deduce credible structure from true knowledge and understanding.

I would boldly state that there is as much chance of creating true inteligent life or of a camel passing through the eye of a needle as there is a chance of ever understanding the mysteries of life, the universe or existence.

If you arbitrarily pick and chose a topic of debate that exists atop a foundation that is nothing more than fantasy, then what service does this serve other than multiplying the confusion that beyond clarity, such as the slimey soup cocktail that sprung to life and evolved into whatever one pretends it did without that which came before.

It reminds me of the anticdote

Man with technology has gained the abilities of God, and challenges God.

So, God scoops a bit of dirt into his hand and breaths upon it and a bird is created from the dirt and flies away.

The man knows he can easily recreate this feat and reaches down scooping up a bit of dirt.

God stops him and says, wait a minute. That's my dirt. Use you own dirt.

The man is unable to create his own dirt, thus unable to accomplish any feat of God.

The moral of this story is the equivelent of the hypothised life on earth concept as well as all mysterious foundation supporting such nonesense.

That story also contains the enigma of where did God come from and all that follows.

This again cannot be answered and unless it or any other thesis is comprehended, all that is argued has been, is and always will be moot.

The stalemate cannot be broken.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


The thing is, creationists can't get along without answering the question of "how did the universe start?" They require someone/something to have charge of the whole thing for some reason. Why a "god" would create a Universe that is 99.9999999999999% vacuum is not a question they can deal with.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


either position, crationism or evolution has the same quandary.

If there is no creator, there still is no understanding of how there is existence at all.

How much of existence is vacuum or how something came to be is a question built without foundation.

Which came first - the linear existence we call reality must have a beginning.

Even circularity, which in model has no beginning or ending still must have begun.

No creationist nor evolutionist can comprehend, understand or verify how and by what means the lightswitch of existence was flipped on.

I must reitterate,

Noone can break the stalemate and any view or belief is subject to the same non-verifiable foundational question which proves the inability to
prove anything.

He who breaks the stalemate may testify the truth.

All who attempt and cannot, are charletons.

So far, we have nothing but charletons who can argue, but the only proven fact in topics of this nature is that the stalemate cannot be broken.

The smoke being blown is as unsound as the foundation of which they concern themselve not with, when painting theory.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


"Which came first - the linear existence we call reality must have a beginning. "

Why?

I see no stalemate. The cult of creationism is struggling, and is being eroded by the modern world. They're eager to return us to the 17th century, but the shiny toys are more alluring than bible-thumping.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
either position, crationism or evolution has the same quandary.
..


You're talking of creationists and naturalists, not creationists and evolutionists.




top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join