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: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
The Monkey Man theory I dont belive one bit out of.
Why are there still monkeys?


If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Or maybe you could have asked: If amphibians came from fish, why are there still fish?


Why dont the monkeys drive cars?

They do as you can see here. But they probably arent allowed, because theyll just speed? Why do you think they're not drivin?? Cause they cant reach the pedals! (duh)


Why are the monkeys just as dumb now as for 10.000 years ago?

They are as dumb now as then, and as smart now as then. Humans are as dumb as we were 10,000 years ago and as smart now as then. Now just have more knowlege.


... Think abit !!!

*snip*

 


Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 6-4-2009 by GAOTU789]




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I believe the Raelian Movement started the Intelligent Design philosophy. If not (i may be wrong) they are certainly making a lot of money from their philosophy in much the same way as the Zionists have made money since hijacking Christianity.

This is the site of the Raelian Movement for anyone who hasn't visited it before and wishes to further research -

rael.org...

Personally i find this free book 'link below' written by a former member of the Raelian Movement of much more interest than the rael site -

www.scribd.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Celtic-Man
I believe the Raelian Movement started the Intelligent Design philosophy. If not (i may be wrong) they are certainly making a lot of money from their philosophy in much the same way as the Zionists have made money since hijacking Christianity.

This is the site of the Raelian Movement for anyone who hasn't visited it before and wishes to further research -

rael.org...

Personally i find this free book 'link below' written by a former member of the Raelian Movement of much more interest than the rael site -

www.scribd.com...


"Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap suit."

Rael just borrowed it and added tincture of insanity to make it tastier to the New Agers.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by AshtonBlack
 


to be honest, it depends on what mood i'm in.
some days i look around and say, "man, it can't all be random, it just feels too perfect" and some days i look around and say "man, it has to be random, it just feels too perfect" and some days i say "man, it feels too perfect to care".

weather or not ID is the most probable explanation should not influence the decision on weather or not the idea should be presented. the idea, at it's core, seems as sound as not and is either way unproovable.

my view is that it can and should be responcibly taught as an alternative to the standard model where significant members of the public wish alternatives to be discussed as part of the science curriculum.


The scientific method is demonstrably the best way to go from a hypothesis, to experiment, to theory, to knowledge and prediction about the observable universe, yet saying "I don't know" is perfectly fine in science.

Simply put, it has been established that ID is a non-scientific theory. Therefore does not belong in a science class. By all means, teach it in a philosophy or religious education class as an "alternative".

If it had any scientific credentials, then by all means, but alas, the "best" of these have been soundly trounced in a court of law.

Using the argument "lot's of people want it." Does not make it more true or a stronger hypothesis. This is a logical fallacy called "Argument Ad Populum." or appeal to popularity.

Finally, in this world, I believe, we only have one shot to make life better for others and ourselves. Only one chance to equip our children with the mental tools so they can combat our mistakes and those of previous generations. Critical thinking, curiosity, freedom of thought and speech are vital in this pursuit.
To deny them the "best" of our knowledge with unsubstantiated, for want of a better word, woo is, to me, a shameful act. Yet, all across the world that is what people are doing, when they try to subvert their educational establishments with religious based teaching in a science class.

As an FINAL, finally, I am not totally against religion in all its forms and believe in teaching our children about all the religions of the world and letting them make up their own minds.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
We have to care about ID being taught to kids, just as you'd care if it were being taught that black people were inherently inferior to whites. It makes kids shut towards doubt and the scientific method and promotes an attitude toward humanity that is immensely harmful, along with all other faith based ideas.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
it seems ID might mean an awful lot of things to different people, to me it's just a proposal that because of the mathematically logical perfection of the universe, it must have been intelligently designed, and if it was, then everything in it has been designed and works the way it does because it was designed.

this is logically true.

the opposing argument states that everything in the universe exists by accident, and that everything in the universe must work just as it does in order for the universe to exist in the first place but this does not negate the random nature of this accident. one time in a million the million to one chance happens.

this is also logically true.

neither can be shown to be more probable or more logically correct because it doesn't matter what scale either idea is expanded to, both are always logically true.

for instance even if the christian god was demonstrated as true both arguments are still true with an expanded frame of reference.

neither arguments are more scientific or probable than the other, it's pure philosophy. if either are taught as science then both should be.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
"it seems ID might mean an awful lot of things to different people, to me it's just a proposal that because of the mathematically logical perfection of the universe, it must have been intelligently designed, and if it was, then everything in it has been designed and works the way it does because it was designed. "

This is what I'm talking about, folks. The ID proponents steadfastly refuse to admit that the Designer is the Great Sky Fairy. IF they did they know it would get bounced out of science classes PDQ. So they have to dance, dodge and dissemble on a massive scale, making things up and creating phasmagorical scenarios to prop up their idol.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


if you don't understand what i'm saying refrain from commenting on it. i'm not dumbing myself down because you don't get it. who are the "folks" you refer to, you sound like a bad simpsons character.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
it seems ID might mean an awful lot of things to different people, to me it's just a proposal that because of the mathematically logical perfection of the universe, it must have been intelligently designed, and if it was, then everything in it has been designed and works the way it does because it was designed.

this is logically true.

the opposing argument states that everything in the universe exists by accident, and that everything in the universe must work just as it does in order for the universe to exist in the first place but this does not negate the random nature of this accident. one time in a million the million to one chance happens.

this is also logically true.

neither can be shown to be more probable or more logically correct because it doesn't matter what scale either idea is expanded to, both are always logically true.

for instance even if the christian god was demonstrated as true both arguments are still true with an expanded frame of reference.

neither arguments are more scientific or probable than the other, it's pure philosophy. if either are taught as science then both should be.



But the alternative to a "conscious designer" is NOT random chance for everything.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
no offense but...

why do we have creationists and believers of ID here in ATS anyway? i thought those people arent allowed here? ATS' tag line is "deny ignorance", so why are they even here?

its so stupid. and creationists tell those who doesnt believe them that they are close minded. close minded?? they are the ones who refuse evidence and base all their knowledge from a 2000 yr old book!!



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 180attoseconds
no offense but...

why do we have creationists and believers of ID here in ATS anyway? i thought those people arent allowed here? ATS' tag line is "deny ignorance", so why are they even here?

its so stupid. and creationists tell those who doesnt believe them that they are close minded. close minded?? they are the ones who refuse evidence and base all their knowledge from a 2000 yr old book!!


Are you saying we shouldn't be guided by the writings of semi-literate goat-herders from the Bronze Age? How UNAMERICAN of you!



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FrigidSymphony
But the alternative to a "conscious designer" is NOT random chance for everything.


i'm open to alternatives (clearly) what else is there?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


:LOL:

i wasnt expecting that!



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 180attoseconds
they are the ones who refuse evidence and base all their knowledge from a 2000 yr old book!!


not at all, the book is either 1600 years old or 5000 years old, depending on how you look at it.


come on, everyone has a right to their opinion, ffs, creationists probably think you're an ignorant sap for allowing yourself to be fooled by the devil.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by 180attoseconds
they are the ones who refuse evidence and base all their knowledge from a 2000 yr old book!!


not at all, the book is either 1600 years old or 5000 years old, depending on how you look at it.


come on, everyone has a right to their opinion, ffs, creationists probably think you're an ignorant sap for allowing yourself to be fooled by the devil.


IDer's don't want us to have an opinion. They want us to have their opinion. And that's where the fight starts.

As for the devil: "Heaven won't have us and Hell's afraid we'll take over."



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by FrigidSymphony
But the alternative to a "conscious designer" is NOT random chance for everything.


i'm open to alternatives (clearly) what else is there?


I mean that evolutionary theory does not state that everything is random. The only random part of it (as far as I've understood Hawking) is the initial moment of the Big Bang. It may be a 1 in a 1'000'000 chance, but as Douglas Adams says, those crop up 9 times out of 10.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by 180attoseconds
they are the ones who refuse evidence and base all their knowledge from a 2000 yr old book!!


not at all, the book is either 1600 years old or 5000 years old, depending on how you look at it.


come on, everyone has a right to their opinion, ffs, creationists probably think you're an ignorant sap for allowing yourself to be fooled by the devil.


i guess your right about everyone has a right about opinion.

what makes me mad is that these creationists are trying to get ID into schools, they want it as an alternative to schools.

i think everyone in the US already saw this, i live in asia so we dont get showtime here.

penn and teller bullsh*t: creationism

www.liveleak.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


your whole point has been that it is wrong for IDers to suggest both theories taught, you wish only the theory you subscribe to be taught. i think you're projecting.

reply to post by FrigidSymphony
 


while the traits are not exactly randomly selected, they must have an advantage, they are fairly random in their generation, although it can be mathematically described.

my point is that design or randomness is true from the moment of creation. all life is a random series of events that happened just so or it is designed, there is no third way.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I've always been sort of interested in Rupert Sheldrake's notion of morphic resonance.

Rupert Sheldrake and Morphic Resonance

He's done some good, solid science regarding it that hopefully can continue to provide new insight. If nothing else, his theories, expanded a bit perhaps to include less temporal linearity (allow for effect before cause) might be able to provide an alternative explanation to a number of questions about abiogenesis and "directed" mutation that has essentially no requirement for a Big Grandpa in the Sky guiding everything.

Creation and Intelligent Design without the need for God? Throwing out the bathwater but keeping a nice, clean baby? Now there's certainly something worth looking into.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
I've always been sort of interested in Rupert Sheldrake's notion of morphic resonance.

Rupert Sheldrake and Morphic Resonance

He's done some good, solid science regarding it that hopefully can continue to provide new insight. If nothing else, his theories, expanded a bit perhaps to include less temporal linearity (allow for effect before cause) might be able to provide an alternative explanation to a number of questions about abiogenesis and "directed" mutation that has essentially no requirement for a Big Grandpa in the Sky guiding everything.

Creation and Intelligent Design without the need for God? Throwing out the bathwater but keeping a nice, clean baby? Now there's certainly something worth looking into.


"Rupert Sheldrake: The Delightful Crackpot". Heavy on the woo, this one is.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join