"Intelligent Design" is a conspiracy.

reply to post by orangetom1999


"Please elaborate on this for me scientifically...not politically. "

You'll have to look that up for yourself, I'm not getting paid to teach you. And, of course, you learn more when you explore the field for yourself.

I'm made a note to read the rest of your post at some future date.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I read the post. It was painstaking. Let me summarize. Orangutan doesn't care how old the Earth is and doest really consider scientific endeavors of value other than having contributed some nifty technological advances that help us with daily existence. Stuff like two ply toilet paper. He's confused in claiming that people who accept the scientific explanation for life, nature and stuff in general are practicing some sort of scientific religion. This is one of the key "Idiot-Design/creationism" trickeration points. Don't be fooled. Orangutan is a strange sort of numbskull parroting the bunk of Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlaffly and Jim & Tammy Faye Baker. Way to carry the torch Orangy.

Evolution states that when nature finds an effective method of reproduction it sticks with it until that method no longer works, at which point it will "evolve" again to something that does work.

Aside from the fact that in the amount of time needed (millions of years according to evolutionists) to find an effective "mutation" (which are almost always detrimental to any species and if continued will result in sterility of the species) the species would have died out anyway; one has to question to great diversity of life.

Take plant life, for example: if a flower happened upon a lucky combination of nectar, color, size, shape, pollen, etc. to attract a bee that would pollinate it (would have to happen in the first generation of the flower or it would immediately become extinct), why are there so many types, shapes, sizes, colors of flowers? Wouldn't the one effective "mutation" have been sufficient?


Have you ever noticed how all evolutionists use "sentient" terms to describe allegedly non-sentient processes? Things like: "this animal needed....so it developed..." How would the animal (or plant) KNOW what it needed to correct its deficit state? How would a flower KNOW it needed to be yellow to attract bees? Why would attracting bees be necessary as there are a multitude of other pollinators (moths, butterflies, flies, beetles, birds, etc.)? Why wouldn't the flower grow bigger leaves if mindless evolution was occurring? Not that growing bigger leaves would work but how would the stupid flower KNOW what needed to change? How would it KNOW that a change was necessary?

See? Even in evolution, intelligence is required for the design to function properly.

Then there's the matter of mathematics. Even if a big bang occurred that exploded a multitude of life-giving elements to form into knowledgeable flowers, bugs, lichen and what have you, there had to be a finite number of those elements. May have been 10, or 10 googooplex but there was a finite number. What did that finite number of elements live off of (or eat) for those millions of years they were busy using up energy in their rush to evolve into all that we see today? The entire cosmic soup would have been consumed before any meaningful evolutionary changes occurred.

Then there's the matter of WILL. Evolutionists state that nature (their godless word for "God") DOESN'T CARE how or why something works as long as it does work and everything keeps moving forward. If nothing else, that heavily suggests a WILL to "nature". It has a desire, a plan, a goal, a will to continue. That alone implies that nature itself is sentient and intelligent; directing its own course of survivable design.

I'm constantly amazed in these discussions that evolutionists, who so adamantly, vehemently and aggressively (not to mention rudely), PREACH their gospel of "creationists are idiots! science is the one true god!" that they fail to see themselves doing the exact same thing they vociferously denounce in their opponents.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".

I agree that there is plenty of scientific evidence for changes within a species. But there is NO evidence of one species changing into another. Darwins' finches had beak changes. Whoopdedoo. Animals and plants can make minor changes within their genetic limitations but they don't spontaneous (or over millions of years) mutate into something viable. Mutations are genetic aberrations that result in sterility not biodiversity.

reply to post by whitewave


"Evolution states that when nature finds an effective method of reproduction it sticks with it until that method no longer works, at which point it will "evolve" again to something that does work."

Where did you come up with this babble, please? You are talking about a science that you obviously know very little about. That won't stop you from going on about it, of course, and I do hope you continue, it helps when people like you speak about evolution. Helps the pro-evolution group.

reply to post by R13sg0


Welcome to ATS R14sg0. I'm sorry to inform you that you're probably beating a dead horse but you did it with such style and wit that you are to be commended.

ATS is predominately atheistic (antagonistically so) and the few voices suggesting that creationism or intelligent design be CONSIDERED are quickly shouted down with hostility, derision, side-stepping the pointed questions asked, belittling, baiting, insulting, etc.

I mostly gave up on this topic at ATS but I do appreciate you and others jumping into the lions den to fight the good fight. Denying ignorance, indeed!

As for those who vociferously shout that even a consideration that science might not have all the answers (or that the answers it thinks it has are even correct) would be tantamount to plunging us all back to a time before electric bread makers were invented; well, consider Newton. I believe he is recognized by atheistic scientists to have furthered the cause of science. He was a devout believer in God.

There are many others too numerous to enumerate but quite a few were before Darwin's time. Men of science who made great inroads to our understanding of scientific principles yet were firm believers in an intelligent designer. We stand on the shoulders of giants and, from our lofty view, mock those who brought us to such an enlightened stage.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


My good man, I've waded through 15 pages of your sermon and I remain unconverted. You've used your bully pulpit for a personal rant while avoiding answering any questions.

I think even Socrates would be done with this thread. Forgive me for trespassing in your church of logical fallacies and straw man arguments. I just dropped in to say "hi" to a few friends. Good evening to you.

reply to post by whitewave




Thank you. I joined ATS especially for this thread. Gawdzilla be commended for bringing in more members to the ATS community. I've seen him replying across the board and he does have a...eh.. very unique way of expressing his views.
It's like this on all forums and i know that there are more readers then writers on all forums too. I just wanted people to know that the choice between Evolution and Church is a false one. There are ideas out there that transcend this choice and have a very different viewpoint on the entire matter.

I find the choice for a deity or none a very important decision in ones life. Choose for one and it will make you feel less random and more like you are a part of something that transcends this single life. Of course you can find it in Church and follow her doctrine. But what if we found it in science and made it a theory, no bible, no doctrines, no saviour, no commandments, just the fact that there is an intelligent deity that is responsible for all creation. I really believe that we have enough facts to present a theory about design and a designer. Almost none of the facts are geological, those become redundant. A new theory is needed, because what has evolution theory really accomplished? It just turned phylogenetics into a religion, that's it. But with it they deprived life from it's value, encourages racism, claimed atheïsm and thus in general, has a negative impact on society. It now swallows so much money that 'resistance is futile', criticism is not accepted.

Almost all scientist in the field give me the feeling that he/she is chasing a small piece of a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. Turning and twisting the piece, trying different places, some fit into another and some need minor adjustments, some just hang loose. But none fit in the framework that has been laying there for over a century. They can't fit the pieces in the framework and so they change the framework. And now all the framework they have left is phylogenetics.
And with it they claim macro evolution, and with that they claim no design and with that they claim there is no God, with that they claim that all is random, and with that they claim that natural selection does the selecting, and with that they claim that the old framework was right all along. Sprinkle some 'time' over the top and finish with it off with the fact of micro evolution.

It is hanging on its last straw. The only people that are willing (and stupid) enough to try and kick against that last straw is the Church. I say, it a simple fact that there is a common decent. The theory that is build around it is wrong, it is old and it is stupid. It's not even necessary to find proof of a deity by contradicting evolution theory. There are enough fields in science that go past evolution, like quantum mechanics. The beach sand experiment i mentioned earlier is also a find that goes past evolution. I would like to recommend the book 'The Field' by Mctaggart. It will pretty much guide you beyond evolution in search of a deity or a meaning for this life, with science and in simple English (translated into many languages).

The reason why the church won't go into that and keeps trying to proof itself by disproving evolutionism. Is because it doesn't comply with what's in the bible. Just disprove 'the atheists' and they can claim whatever they want. And having said that, Gawdzilla's claim that "Intelligent Design is a conspiracy" Isn't such a far out claim as it sounds. If he only looks as far as the cases against evolution, and it looks like he does that, doesn't it?

Anyway, thanks for not-icing me Whitewave. Isn't it strange that the friendly voices i get never come from the atheists in these discussions . I like your writing style and i wish you a very good, fruitful and enjoyable day.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by R13sg0]

Blorch. Blah, blah, blah. This is not an either or choice. There is one right answer. We're talking about how it is that organisms on planet Earth have arrived where we are today. The facts determined by science never lead to a conclusion including a god. That's the beauty of science. Attempts to eloquently slip in the bogus intelligent design creationism garbage are merely attempts that have been disproved already. Science will never lead to a theory including non-science. It doesnt fit into any of the subdisciplines that are science. From the beginning of this thread to the present the folks buying into the ID BS are presenting the same misinformation. It's simple, study biology and geology and earth history as is established by many generations of scientists and learn why the flat earth theory and all other discarded ideas have been discarded.

I can't remember who said it but the following sums things up nicely...:

"......Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

How could non-sentience come up with the necessities to produce sentience?

Always curious about that one.

First off..Hello Whitewave. How nice to see your posts again.
Hope all is well in your part of the country.


Gawdzilla,

You'll have to look that up for yourself, I'm not getting paid to teach you. And, of course, you learn more when you explore the field for yourself.

I'm made a note to read the rest of your post at some future date.

As I recall ..I asked you to elaborate on this ..scientifically..not politically.

Was there not a very astute politician of recent who ...when asked a question about abortion ...stated..

"Thats above my pay grade!!"

Sound familiar?? Suggest when you learn to shoot that you shoot straight.
Also make sure your gun is loaded. It helps.
A political answer or political evasiveness is not science. Thinking people out here reading this thread know the difference.
It is however...the religion of politics...and a very devout one by your zeal and usage of it as well as the technique used by FeedingTheRat. Very unscientific. A well trained intellect such as yours can do better than this technique. Much better.

However...you are quite correct about this..from page 15 of this thread

BTW, it is possible to cut rock quickly with water. You just have to pump it up to 20,000 psi or so. No problem then, it will cut steel. There is some doubt of such an event occurring during a flood of any size, however.

This is precisely how the hull of the USS Nathaniel Green was cut in removing the missle tube section of this boat when decomissioning her.
The propane torch method was causing to many fires down below and it was decided to use a high pressure rig to cut the hull. Submarine hulls are of a special strength steel to withstand the rigors of the depths.
This high pressure cutting rig did the job and eliminated the problems of fires so prevalent with the olde torch method. Good call here on your part.
Now that is a practical application of science and scientific principles/knowlege. Well stated here on your part.

Oh..and while I am thinking about it...this...

As for the way it got hard, that's well known. Lots of pressure over long periods.

I was wondering ...since you are very scientifically minded...do you know how much pressure a large body of water would exert over the top of a large section of land?? Pick a depth of water...any depth..water weighs alot to my limted knowledge..does it not??

Oh ..and another thing for which I just happen to recall..
When an aircraft carrier is pulled out of a drydock..and one which has been in the drydock a couple of years....the area around the drydock gate has to be dredged. It seems that tidal action does not take long to force sediment around the bottom of the drydock gate. Imagine that..only a couple of years..not thousands and thousands...millions even...not long periods.
I just thought I would throw that in here....free..no cover charge. Your welcome.

FeedTheRat,

I read the post. It was painstaking. Let me summarize. Orangutan doesn't care how old the Earth is and doest really consider scientific endeavors of value other than having contributed some nifty technological advances that help us with daily existence. Stuff like two ply toilet paper. He's confused in claiming that people who accept the scientific explanation for life, nature and stuff in general are practicing some sort of scientific religion. This is one of the key "Idiot-Design/creationism" trickeration points. Don't be fooled. Orangutan is a strange sort of numbskull parroting the bunk of Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlaffly and Jim & Tammy Faye Baker. Way to carry the torch Orangy.

This is indeed painstaking..in that it smacks of the very politics I am so often want to describe as a religious dogma. Not worthy of you as well with your pronounced intellect.

You give any real scientist or people involved in the field a bad name with this technique. This is pure religion and politics. In short it is whoredom at the expence of real science.

You can do much better than this pubescent acne filled fluff.

It does however debase the boards or as the mods are wont to phrase it .. it takes away from the quality of the boards.

No problem here with me on this. If you want to continue to use this technique....go ahead. I merely point it out as very unscientific and shows a devout political technique in lieu of real science and scientific knowlege. And as I stated to Gawdzilla...thinking people on these boards..known the difference.

Self promotion and denegrating others to the religion of science is not science..it is politics. And politics is whoredom..the buying, selling, bartering the souls of others for power, influence, and lucre.
Hence I say..you too can do better than this.

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom