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: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You've obviously never heard of the Socratic method. Asking questions is important. Not asking questions is apparently the hallmark of the ID movement.




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by melatonin
 


"Will do as a tentative position. "

If you're willing to settle for that, fine. Just don't require anyone else to accept it blindly.


Doesn't need to be accepted blindly. Biblical creationism is wrong, ID is vacuous, BB theism is again vacuous - as it does no more than posit a cause. So, we're left with naturalism.

Naturalism has been sufficient to explain phenomena thus far. We don't know everything, of course. But the evidence suggests that positing supernatural in place of 'don't know' (i.e., an argument from ignorance) is nothing more than a place holder for a future naturalistic explanation.

But because we don't know all, or have 100% certainty in much about nature. I am open to real evidence and will change my position accordingly. So, naturalism is a tentative position that I hold.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66
 


You've obviously never heard of the Socratic method. Asking questions is important. Not asking questions is apparently the hallmark of the ID movement.


What can i say!!

Man keep up the good work. Guess i have to give you at least some pitty for reading.

Next lol.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


If you look at a building is it not evidence of a builder? If you see a painting is that not evidence there was a painter? If you look at all of creation is that not evidence of ...

Anyhow here is a link to another posters topic on here, if you watch at least the first 2-3 videos (11 total about 5-10 minutes long each) I think this is definatley "evidince" of intelligent design!


www.abovetopsecret.com...

credit to OmegaPoint for finding and posting those vids together in one thread here.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tnt3kgt
 


"If you look at a building is it not evidence of a builder? If you see a painting is that not evidence there was a painter? If you look at all of creation is that not evidence of ..."

If I stack two rocks, is that not sign of a designer? If I leave wet foot prints in the sand, were they not created?

Just because you want to believe something it's not automatically true.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


hahahahahahaha!

"And on the eighth day, God created the .30 gauge so man could hunt the dinosaurs!"

No, really, there are so many flaws in that line of questioning...



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn Richter
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


hahahahahahaha!

"And on the eighth day, God created the .30 gauge so man could hunt the dinosaurs!"

No, really, there are so many flaws in that line of questioning...



Very true. Many people WANT a "designer", so they think one up.

Question about "designer", BTW. When fundies say "designer", they mean "God". My question is, is it okay to tell that kind of lie? Isn't bearing false witness one of the Big Ten?



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by tnt3kgt
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


If you look at a building is it not evidence of a builder? If you see a painting is that not evidence there was a painter? If you look at all of creation is that not evidence of ...


No, wait, I know this one - CLEVER WORD PLAY! So if I look at a piano, is that evidence of a pianist?

SCIENCE!



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I don't think it is ok. But that simply fits in with the fundamentalist ethos of "it's a sin unless I do it on God's behalf..."

Did you ever hear of Expelled? Total BS movie that made me lose all respect for Ben Stein.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by tnt3kgt
If you look at a building is it not evidence of a builder? If you see a painting is that not evidence there was a painter?


If you look at a snowflake, is it not evidence of a designer? I mean we all just know that Jesus designs every single snowflake, don't we? We've observed this happening, haven't we? There's no way there can be order without a designer, right?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn Richter
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I don't think it is ok. But that simply fits in with the fundamentalist ethos of "it's a sin unless I do it on God's behalf..."

Did you ever hear of Expelled? Total BS movie that made me lose all respect for Ben Stein.


And the Institute for Creation Research funded that bomb of a movie. It's purely propaganda for creationism, without regard to reality.

In fact, you can blame Stein for me being here. If I hadn't been disgusted with the premise of that garbage flick I wouldn't have become a militant atheist.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by lawbringer
reply to post by 5thElement
 


How did universe come to be?

a) spawned from nothing for no reason

b) was always there

c) created by an infinte intelligent being

[edit on 13-4-2009 by lawbringer]


Us pastafarians have the answer:

d) created by an infinite unintelligent (at the time) being

The evidence for unintelligent design is overwhelming.

RAmen



Hindi will say that the Universe is just God's dream. One thing they got about right (unlike Christians) was time scale. It really defies reason. How the hell did they come up with those figures? They're so close to the real ones. It's amazing.

Listen to Carl Sagan talking about it here

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 20-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinocerosThe evidence for unintelligent design is overwhelming.

RAmen

[edit on 20-4-2009 by rhinoceros]


As a devout teapostist I find your ideas revolting. If you can't see the Celestial Teapot you're just not looking. May I provide a book that will show you the errors of your ways?

The True Story of the Celestial Teapot.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


In the after life your beer is going to be stale and all the strippers will have STDs.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I support the idea of ID. It is very necessary, in light of other theories that are very plausible, there should be room for an idea like ID.
Like mentioned before Morphogenesis is widely accepted to explain biological events. And don't forget the finding of Quantum mechanics and their discoveries about the observer effect. There are also a number of para-sciences that are being held back because of the idea that we are mere things. Like psychokinesis, remote viewing, ghosts etc. just because there can be no other thing then current evolution theory.
But it is holding back our science, therefore can not be the whole truth. It is in desperate need of revision.
You can not rule out a creating force when a creating force is found in the observer effect. You can not rule out a designer if morphogenesis is explaining designs.
I'm very sure that there is a conspiracy of some sort to support ID for religious purposes. The problem is that that is seen as the basic reason to defend Evolution theory. As if suddenly all people will turn into Christians and life by its doctrine if science let one word slip about a God.

There are so many ways in which i can point to proof the evolution theory wrong, for example the creation of consciousness (The observer). It isn't measurable, it has no form of communication with matter that we can observe. Yet we have proven it's existence. How can it ever coexist with evolution when evolution says that we are a mere product of randomness and time. Yet we have a direct influence on randomness, chance and time itself. (link)

Or how can the skin cell in my finger know where it is located. It has the exact (!) DNA as every other cell in my body. So it can't be explained chemically and especially not by evolution. You have to take the logic step and think in fields, blueprints. Sheldrake nailed it and has the evidence to back it up. (link)

As you can read i'm not trying to dismiss the facts on which the evolution theory is build upon. I'm just against the theory, there can be other theories with the same facts. I suggest that evolutionists should stop trying to claim a theory because they can classify fossils. The mechanism of evolution, The origin of life and conciousness, and the existence of a designer are still open for debate. It does not matter if something as insignificant as a religion tries to kidnap ideas. Science will prevail.


[edit on 2-5-2009 by R13sg0]
-fixed links

[edit on 2-5-2009 by R13sg0]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0
I support the idea of ID.


Well, good for you...

As long that you do not teach it to the Muslim, Buddhist and Atheist children in the public schools as science (because their parents would not like you to) I have no problem with it



Originally posted by R13sg0
It is very necessary, in light of other theories that are very plausible, there should be room for an idea like ID.


No, it is not necessary, really, what IMO is necessary is to look deep within our minds and admit there are things we will NEVER know and learn to be in peace with that.

Simply replacing things that we do not know with concept of God (creator) is not inherent to science.

Scientific theories can be, and are refuted and replaced, if necessary, by other scientific theories all the time.

One element of ID "theory", unfortunately, does not stand that kind of scientific scrutiny, the creator himself...

So far, proponents of ID could not exclude creator entity from their work, therefore it belongs to less then science category



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement
One element of ID "theory", unfortunately, does not stand that kind of scientific scrutiny, the creator himself...

So far, proponents of ID could not exclude creator entity from their work, therefore it belongs to less then science category


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.

And i find it weak that you ignore all my arguments against Evolution theory and pro-creator, to simply tell me that science should be atheist. I know that is the ultimate goal for evolutionists and Dawkin worshippers, and that is wrong for all the reasons i mentioned in my previous post. The ones you must have missed in your haste to comment.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0
There are so many ways in which i can point to proof the evolution theory wrong, for example the creation of consciousness (The observer).

You mean the gradual evolution of brains?



It isn't measurable, it has no form of communication with matter that we can observe.

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




Yet we have proven it's existence. How can it ever coexist with evolution when evolution says that we are a mere product of randomness and time.

That's not what evolution says.



Or how can the skin cell in my finger know where it is located. It has the exact (!) DNA as every other cell in my body. So it can't be explained chemically and especially not by evolution. You have to take the logic step and think in fields, blueprints. Sheldrake nailed it and has the evidence to back it up. (link)

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



As you can read i'm not trying to dismiss the facts on which the evolution theory is build upon.

Funny, that's exactly what you did.



I'm just against the theory, there can be other theories with the same facts. I suggest that evolutionists should stop trying to claim a theory because they can classify fossils.

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



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by R13sg0
 


"I support the idea of ID. It is very necessary, in light of other theories that are very plausible, there should be room for an idea like ID."

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.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join