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.

 

More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 




How would conveniently stating intelligent design solves everything, when it actually means there's no explanation for the creation of the creator!!!


Who is saying that I.D. solves everything? (Minus Christians).




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science

Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design.



They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity.



"But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. "

"It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity."

"The pieces “were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function,” said Sebastian Poggio, a postdoctoral cell biologist at Yale University and co-author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

www.wired.com...




“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”

[edit on 27/8/2009 by Daniem]


so you proved that tecnological scientists were wrong but you what exactly the proof is because you disproved a scientist was wrong just try disproving a bible follower. that actually know what hes talking about

youir trying disproving intelligent design with a scientistsw answer there is your answer



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


jews



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

How, exactly, does that disprove I.D.?


It doesn't. In fact it is impossible to disprove, or falsify ID. Which is why it is not a scientific theory. Same with creationism.

It is a theory, but for for it to be science it must be falsifiable.


Creationism isn't really a theory unless we can call a guess that a flying spaghetti monster lives on earth a theory, rather than a wild speculative guess. It's pseudo-science mis-information that lacks evidence & logic. In other words it's nothing more than conjecture.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by john124
 




How would conveniently stating intelligent design solves everything, when it actually means there's no explanation for the creation of the creator!!!


Who is saying that I.D. solves everything? (Minus Christians).


That was intended as a remark towards the creationists.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 




That was intended as a remark towards the creationists.


Ah, those pesky Christian creationists.

Yeah gotcha



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

so you proved that tecnological scientists were wrong but you what exactly the proof is because you disproved a scientist was wrong just try disproving a bible follower. that actually know what hes talking about

youir trying disproving intelligent design with a scientistsw answer there is your answer


Ummm okay


In fact he did not show anything by posting this, except that biology is evidence based and has determined that evolutionary aspects apply to real life situations, and that intelligent design made-up theories don't.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Since when has it been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything must have a beginning and a end like us?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 




jews


I'm at loss.




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 




Since when has it been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything must have a beginning and a end like us?


What does that have to do with the topic? We, as humans, have a beginning and ending.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning and the ending.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Reply to post by john124
 


Whether it's an arguement for chance or a creative force or deity it's ALL conjecture. Simple fact is we don't know because we weren't there.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Well let's see what we have here.....the use of terms like:
"pieces" being "recruited", "acquired"; "machinery's" that "emerge"

All terms associated with and attributed to intelligent design and creativity. The highest form of intelligence is creative intelligence.

I see nothing here to support evolution. What I see are comments from a white coat that looks at things from an evolution perspective because his funding comes from the gov, and the gov doesn't give money to creation scientists and research programs.

Nothing to see here folks. Just another thread designed to divide people or cause hate and discontent.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


The creator of the creator arguement you mentioned....


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Daniem
 


Argh, see what you did now ...

With all this science and reason you just provided "them" with two more gaps.


What?
It's NOT two more pieces involving science and reason.
It's conjecture and opinion motivated by confirmnation bias and a belief in a theory which is fraudulently promulgated to the masses as a proven fact, when in fact it is just a Theory....and not even a reasonable one. The white coat get's his funding from the gov, while the creation scientists is privately funded. If the white coat starts to support creation science views, he looses his paycheck and faces ridicule from his peers. That's the motivation.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Daniem
 


Argh, see what you did now ...

With all this science and reason you just provided "them" with two more gaps.


What?
It's NOT two more pieces involving science and reason.
It's conjecture and opinion motivated by confirmnation bias and a belief in a theory which is fraudulently promulgated to the masses as a proven fact, when in fact it is just a Theory....and not even a reasonable one. The white coat get's his funding from the gov, while the creation scientists is privately funded. If the white coat starts to support creation science views, he looses his paycheck and faces ridicule from his peers. That's the motivation.


Funnily enough the evidence of fossils can actually back up those "theories".

Why do you assume scientists avoid creationism because of ridicule? It's actually because creationism doesn't have any scientific reasoning behind it, or any logical reasoning at all.

Scientists aren't going to discount anything, including god etc. But when they make observations that fit with natural selection and evolutionary processes, they are going to make valid points that intelligent design doesn't seem to apply.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by john124
 


Whether it's an arguement for chance or a creative force or deity it's ALL conjecture. Simple fact is we don't know because we weren't there.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



True, but science is never absolute about anything unless the evidence supports the theories, and so proves it.

We can't call creationism a scientific theory, just like we cannot call guesses that the earth was flat a valid scientific theory, or the earth being at the centre of the universe.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Daniem
 


Well let's see what we have here.....the use of terms like:
"pieces" being "recruited", "acquired"; "machinery's" that "emerge"

All terms associated with and attributed to intelligent design and creativity. The highest form of intelligence is creative intelligence.


Who created the creative creator?? Duh!...



I see nothing here to support evolution. What I see are comments from a white coat that looks at things from an evolution perspective because his funding comes from the gov, and the gov doesn't give money to creation scientists and research programs.


Another ridiculous comment..... is your paranoid and deluded reality so narrow?!

Everything alive in the world around us is the product of evolution, with fossil records as the evidence. Natural selection due to the surroundings, with random mutations occurring in genes, and those creatures with mutated genes that are better suited to their environment are more likely to breed and have offspring. It really is a fairly simple concept! And we have evidence to back it up!


Nothing to see here folks. Just another thread designed to divide people or cause hate and discontent.


And you are the one attempting to spread dis-information and false generalisations about a subject area that you just don't understand.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Daniem
 


Argh, see what you did now ...

With all this science and reason you just provided "them" with two more gaps.


What?
It's NOT two more pieces involving science and reason.
It's conjecture and opinion motivated by confirmnation bias and a belief in a theory which is fraudulently promulgated to the masses as a proven fact, when in fact it is just a Theory....and not even a reasonable one. The white coat get's his funding from the gov, while the creation scientists is privately funded. If the white coat starts to support creation science views, he looses his paycheck and faces ridicule from his peers. That's the motivation.


Funnily enough the evidence of fossils can actually back up those "theories".

Why do you assume scientists avoid creationism because of ridicule? It's actually because creationism doesn't have any scientific reasoning behind it, or any logical reasoning at all.

Scientists aren't going to discount anything, including god etc. But when they make observations that fit with natural selection and evolutionary processes, they are going to make valid points that intelligent design doesn't seem to apply.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by john124]


your fossils have a giant gap in them bones just dont go from being able to walk on four legs to walking on two legs so your missing link you find is gonna have a missing link in it too,

[edit on 29-8-2009 by make.changes]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 


Of course there will be gaps. What do you expect, a fossil for every damn generation?

Sorry, as much as you expect us to present to you an infinite number of fossils to fill every change in every organism, that is just not possible.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Daniem
 


Argh, see what you did now ...

With all this science and reason you just provided "them" with two more gaps.


What?
It's NOT two more pieces involving science and reason.
It's conjecture and opinion motivated by confirmnation bias and a belief in a theory which is fraudulently promulgated to the masses as a proven fact, when in fact it is just a Theory....and not even a reasonable one. The white coat get's his funding from the gov, while the creation scientists is privately funded. If the white coat starts to support creation science views, he looses his paycheck and faces ridicule from his peers. That's the motivation.


Funnily enough the evidence of fossils can actually back up those "theories".

Why do you assume scientists avoid creationism because of ridicule? It's actually because creationism doesn't have any scientific reasoning behind it, or any logical reasoning at all.

Scientists aren't going to discount anything, including god etc. But when they make observations that fit with natural selection and evolutionary processes, they are going to make valid points that intelligent design doesn't seem to apply.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by john124]


your fossils have a giant gap in them bones just dont go from being able to walk on four legs to walking on two legs so your missing link you find is gonna have a missing link in it too,

[edit on 29-8-2009 by make.changes]


Yes the picture is incomplete, you're not going to have fossils for every single generation surviving, it's just not a feasible or logical approach to take.

How complete in terms of evidence is the theories based on creationism - at 0%...

Shall we disregard a 99% complete theory, when the vast majority of the biological processes are now proven fact, instead of carrying out the work to complete it.... and start from scratch with a different theory that can't even get off the drawing board??? I think not!

Not everyone wants to pander to other people's beliefs and conjecture. It's the responsibility of creationists to get their theories off the drawing board using proper science if they feel it has credibility to be a working theory. Not just the usual "we have faith argument" that gets nowhere because it just isn't scientific.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by john124]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join