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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



theocracy making the decisions.

what u my friend do not realize, is that its possible there already is a theocracy in place. If there is a God ....then no matter what any of us thinks, says, or does, its all part of God and there is no way around it.

Your last post just shows how much you dont make sense. First ID is a conspiracy and this research center wants to force ID down childrens throats, then you say they admit they are not ready with ID yet. So which is it???

In that case everything is a conspiracy theory because everyone chooses a side and thinks they are right and everyone wants what they thin is right to be forced down everyone else's throats.

Sum just dont care.




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


"Your last post just shows how much you dont make sense. First ID is a conspiracy and this research center wants to force ID down childrens throats, then you say they admit they are not ready with ID yet. So which is it???"

Is that supposed to be an poser? If so, go back and read what I said. "ID is not ready to be taught in schools." That's because it's not science. Clear now.

Do keep trying, I don't mind pointing out where you fail.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   


Is that supposed to be an poser? If so, go back and read what I said. "ID is not ready to be taught in schools." That's because it's not science. Clear now. Do keep trying, I don't mind pointing out where you fail.

Science is incomplete. It doesn't know everything and doesn't know if God exists.

Are you saying for something to be true, it has to be defined by science?

Just look around you my friend. You are intelligently using a designed keyboard and computer to respond. Science intelligently studies the designs of existence. Your body is intelligently designed into sets of atoms and molecules. he big bang was a design that intelligently exploded into what we have now.

The fact that we all have intelligence and can use it to make designs.

Perhaps not today, but one day science will explain ID the same way it can explain evolution. You cant get something out of nothingness. Think about that for a few hours.

There was nothing. Then something. HAhahahahaha



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
ID is quite simply a sham.

To suggest that just because science cannot explain something, that it must have been intelligently designed is plain wrong. In the same way that the world was once thought to be flat. I could equally argue that the world was created by the toothfairly, to provide an endless supply of teeth.

ID has no place in our schools and is a poison. The ultimate end to ID is that science need not investigate anything because it was created by god. All of our cancer scientists can hang up their lab coats and take up holy orders. If you get cancer, I'm sure that prayer will save you from the cancer one in three of us will develop.

Our young people deserve more, we deserve more.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mithrawept
 

Yeah but the difference is, the idea of a God is prevalent throughout the world from the beginning of history til now. I don't see the tooth fairy idea being anywhere near in popularity as the idea of a God.

Also from the perspective of science, scientists should be investigating God and ID. Leave no stone unturned. Why would anyone or any organization that is supposed to be investigating every possible possibility leave out an area of research. Thats just stupid.

Like a painter using every color but red. Let's leave red alone and never use it, never realize what we could have found about it. Just leave red over there.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
"Yeah but the difference is, the idea of a God is prevalent throughout the world from the beginning of history til now. I don't see the tooth fairy idea being anywhere near in popularity as the idea of a God."

Dozens, if not hundreds, of gods. All created in the mind of Man. Somewhere we lost track of the difference between Creator and Creation. Some of us are returning to sanity.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



Somewhere we lost track of the difference between Creator and Creation. Some of us are returning to sanity.

So ur saying creator and creation is one thing united????

What constitutes sanity? Who's to say what it is??? I thought I was sane until I experienced spiritual realities and realized that what I thought was sane before was incompleteness.

You would look at someone who leaves all their material things behind and their job in order to meditate the rest of their lives as an insane fool. But the fool is sitting there contemplating infinity and the source of all being, profundities and having breakthroughs in the exact same questions all the greatest minds in the world have asked. Then he stays quiet about it and tells no one.

To someone like you a man like this is insane ....but who really is insane.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


"So ur saying creator and creation is one thing united???? "


Wrong. Of course. I'm saying we forgot who created whom. The Creator was some hairy dude sitting around a fire in a cave, scaring the kids with tales of supernatural beings. Pretty sad when you think about it. IF you think about it. IF you can think about it.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



Wrong. Of course. I'm saying we forgot who created whom. The Creator was some hairy dude sitting around a fire in a cave, scaring the kids with tales of supernatural beings. Pretty sad when you think about it. IF you think about it. IF you can think about it.

I'd rather take an all present, transcendent, all knowing, never ending, within all things and all things within him type of God.

Some hairy dude sitting around the cave bores me ...it isn't a God that I would want to seek. I want my jaw to drop from the awe-ness, to be blown away from how profound God is. You fail me in that aspect.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


"Some hairy dude sitting around the cave bores me ...it isn't a God that I would want to seek. I want my jaw to drop from the awe-ness, to be blown away from how profound God is. You fail me in that aspect."

I'm not trying to be your Great Sky Fairy. He exists only in your mind. You sought him out in your imagination. Not hard to find things in there, is it?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   


I'm not trying to be your Great Sky Fairy. He exists only in your mind. You sought him out in your imagination. Not hard to find things in there, is it?

Then tell me why when I found him, that my personality changed 360 degrees? Why did I spontaneously start reading books on quantum physics? Why did I automatically become a vegetarian. Why did my roommates sense a presence in the house the same day that I found "him." WHy would I leave a high profile high money making career that I was in my prime in?

All at once in 1 day. I never cared before about any of those above subjects. Your telling me, I discovered a make belief "thought" or "idea" and then because I found it my whole character changed and others around me sensed things and I left all things behind????

Come on now!!!!! Your current perspective is like a grain of sand. You dont see the beach yet!!!!! And its funny!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


"Then tell me why when I found him, that my personality changed 360 degrees?"

You mean you continued along the same lines as before?
Why bother, then?

(You are making this too easy.)



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mithrawept
 


Wow, just wow.

You truly provide yourself to be a champion.

ID is philosophy, it deserves to be put put in a philosophy class as much as evolution and big bang is put in a science class.

Your argument is insufficient, and proposes bias nature.

To Gawdzilla;

No, ID is not science, I think I made that point. Science is proven, it is fact. ID is an imaginative aspect based on answers that don't exist, inspiring it's creation(of ID).



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


Quite correct. And if it was just a matter of one scientific view versus another I wouldn't be here talking about it. However, anybody who has looked at the issue with unblinkered eyes knows it's not about the science, it's about one religious sect, the fundamentalists, trying to make everybody else toe their line.
"I can't wait for the day when this (the Buybull) is the only book used in schools!" (From an actual sermon delivered in Dover, Delaware during the trial.)



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Less than sinister, but it's completely wrong to provide philosophy as science. Many philosophies have had scientific grounding, ID does not.

Depending on who's preaching what, spirituality and religion are two different things, I'd say that Creationism and ID are based on metaphysical and spiritual mechanics as to religious indoctrination, none the less -- not science.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Less than sinister, but it's completely wrong to provide philosophy as science. Many philosophies have had scientific grounding, ID does not.

Depending on who's preaching what, spirituality and religion are two different things, I'd say that Creationism and ID are based on metaphysical and spiritual mechanics as to religious indoctrination, none the less -- not science.


I wouldn't even equate fundamentalism with philosophy. In philosophy you're supposed to THINK. Fundamentalist doctrine mandates against thinking.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 





Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world.[1] Someone who studies metaphysics can be called either a "metaphysician" or a "metaphysicist".[2]

The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapters on "physics", in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle himself did not call these works Metaphysics. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy".

A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge" of epistemological origin. The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence. Thus the original situation of metaphysics being integral with (Aristotelian) physics and science, has, in the West, become reversed so that scientists often consider metaphysics antithetical to the empirical sciences.



en.wikipedia.org...


Origins of the concept

Whether the complexity of nature indicates purposeful design is a subject of recorded philosophical discourse dating back to ancient Greek philosophy. In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a good and wise "demiurge" as the creator and first cause of the cosmos in his Timaeus.[37][38] In his Metaphysics, Aristotle developed the idea of an "Unmoved Mover" .[39] In De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods, 45 BC) Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."[40][41] This line of reasoning has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas and in the 19th century by William Paley. Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, used the concept of design in his "fifth proof" for God's existence.[42] Paley, in Natural Theology (1802), used the watchmaker analogy.[43]

In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as a means to understand "the mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.

Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century is seen as a development of natural theology that seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory.[44][45][46] As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed, though the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Past examples have included the eye and the feathered wing; current examples are typically biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacterial flagella. (See irreducible complexity.)

Barbara Forrest describes the intelligent design movement as beginning in 1984 when Jon A. Buell's religious organization the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) published The Mystery of Life's Origin by creationist and chemist Charles B. Thaxton,[47] arguing for "Special Creation by a Creator beyond the Cosmos" which holds "that the source that produced life was intelligent".[48] In March 1986 Stephen C. Meyer's review described it as using information theory to suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show "specified complexity" specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.[49] In November of that year Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design.[50] At the Sources of Information Content in DNA conference in 1988 he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism,[51] and the term intelligent design came up.[52]

Intelligent design deliberately avoids identifying or naming the agent of creation—it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the leaders of the intelligent design movement have said that the designer is the Christian God.[9][53][32][54][55] Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept, or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science, has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.


en.wikipedia.org...

Depending on the origin of the ID being taught, it very well is philosophy.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   


I wouldn't even equate fundamentalism with philosophy. In philosophy you're supposed to THINK. Fundamentalist doctrine mandates against thinking.

But you don't realize fundamentalism exists in science. Its in every sector. You even show hints of it by completely disregarding and trying to kill off ID. You act and say things just like them

philosophy, math, psychology, metaphysics, its all intertwined. Schools should teach everything and not limit teachings by putting kids in a box with blinders on.

On the other hand, Im open and trying to keep every possibility open. By that nature you lose cause you are close, I win because I am open. You are in a box with blinders, I see the whole and dont limit myself the way you do.

Existence doesn't need science to exist, it does so regardless. You dont understand that ID will never go away, its too popular around the world. You will spend the rest of your life in anger over it, with all this hatred because of it, wishing it would go away, and it never does.

Thats why I win. I have peace and love and happiness. I am in the present moment and nothing bothers me.

On the other hand, you are bothered by ID and it will be that way til the day you die. And on that die, when your an old man and its time to go, you will come out of your body and wonder why you are still aware. Then you will see the spiritual realm all around and wonder how its possible.

You lose for the rest of your life and you lose at death. Sorry for you friend. Hope you can get over all of this and find peace.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


"But you don't realize fundamentalism exists in science. Its in every sector. You even show hints of it by completely disregarding and trying to kill off ID. You act and say things just like them"

That makes no sense at all. All I want to do is stop the intrusion of religion into science classes. ID wants to ban science classes in favor of religious instruction.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


Just because something is popular or long lived, doesn't make it right. Slavery has lasted for many thousands of years, much longer than christianity.

There is no more reason for science to study Father Christmas than god, both are supernatural beings. As for ID, there is simply no evidence for it.

I could suggest that the universe was created by a giant mongoose called Colin. Should science investigate Colin as a possibility also? The probability of god and Colin existing are the same. Neither are proved, neither provide any evidence of their existence, neither is any less or more plausible.

In respect to color analogy, what about green? That's the color of Leprechauns. The Irish have believed in Leprechauns for longer than Jesus, should science investigate them?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join