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.
I do believe you set the trend. Here is the factual evidence to support this claim. post by elysiumfire
Originally posted by elysiumfire
How embarrassingly self-belittling you are. Hoping to use ridicule to defeat and derail other's posts is the sign and mark of a most desperate and impoverished mind.
Who mentioned others? Or support. I am replying to your post. That is it. I don't need anyone else or some kind of fear on losing the support of your imagined others. Dude, this is just pathetic.
Others, who would support your belief cannot do so, for you taint it with unreasonable and illogical tirades of twisted nonsense...they see this, and conscientiously remain silent...it is to their benefit and my admiration of them that they do so.
What is authentic about your post? The bias within. Certainly. I agree that I have twisted this to show it as being most obvious. Although I prefer the term Calling a spade a spade, as opposed to your accusation of twisting.
However, because of the twisted manner in which you have warped the context of my posts, I shall here clarify the points you have sucked from their authenticity.
As you point out at the start of your post. The are two sides to this argument and
AA:
You admit that on observation nature presents a compelling argument that there is indeed a design but then relegate it to an inferred one.
I admit of no 'relegation' at all. I use the clause 'points to', and although there have been many instances where observation has presented (compelling) aspects of nature by which it has been misunderstood, science later clearly demonstrated that the observations were simply that of illusions...acceptances that the world was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe are some such instances.
So, do you not agree then that people use the facts held within the complexity of nature as a compelling argument for ID as well as against it, or are you now saying that you do not agree with this?
If evidences we use in each of our side of the debate are or have become, established facts in themselves, then both sides of the debate must respect them as so...we must recognize and respect that established facts are not open to debate
As this is an observation of science, then this also applies to science. In that sciences observation on seemed truths that are later demonstrated to be flawed can also be flawed. We observe this too, do we not. Can you show me where science has corrected a false belief in a divine authority in this debate? That would be far better than this appeal to scientific authority.
Oft' times, observations only 'point to' (ie, infer) seeming truths, but which science later demonstrates to be flaws in the understanding of our own mis-perceivings. God, SI, ID, are in my humble opinion, further examples of such illusions arising from mis-perception.
Then why exclude any answer? It is possible that that a layer will reveal a designer! Why is it that we are not entitled to answer the question with a divine authority now? Some people arrive at evolution as an explanation and answer for the origins of for all life without the very first layer of abiogenesis being known! Where are your questions regarding the validity in truth of evolution if this layer has not been shown or understood?
My acknowledgement that I too can see the misperception of ID in nature, does not (and did not) necessarily mean that I accept it, because I don't...it is simply a layer of nature we have to get through in order to arrive at her reality.
You mean you have hard empirical evidence of what created life and that there is no intelligence in life at all, anywhere? An amazing discovery indeed.
AA:
I don't think there is any inference at all behind intelligent design based on the observed biological complxity, I believe it is a fact that the complexity observed is indeed based on intelligence.
Unfortunately, belief without hard empirical evidence does not cut it,
Really. That is the whole point, but that is not what you are advocating.
although you are rightly entitled to your belief.
My statement is totally supported. Look at nature. Are you observing "stupidity" in the aspects of nature? Because I see logic and intelligence when I look at the amazing aspects of nature, the way it overcomes obstacles, the way it survives, the mechanisms in nature that have spawned diversity and complexity, debates on its genesis and cause aside. But in and of itself nature is intelligent. DNA is an amazing system of information, storage and self correction, replication and transformation. I can see the intelligence in it. Are you saying that this is not the case. Are you saying that we as aspects of nature do not have intelligence(cheap shot invited of course.)
I myself will not jump to error-filled conclusions simply because they may support my vindication in a (as yet) unsupportable belief.
Of course you do realize the immense irony in your own statement.
Of course, you do realise that your statement is nothing more than mere personal opinion, and as interesting a claim it may be, it does not move the debate forward in any way.
Is the system and process of evolution, the change and adaption simply lucky, random, stupid?
AA:
I would call that pretty intelligent.
Fair enough, as opinions go, but I would call it change and adaptation and thus...evolutionary.
No. It is quite clear that you believe that we should not subscribe to a divine author based on what you believe.
More opinion...
Now you see my point. It is pointless then to claim that we are not entitled to arrive at a belief in a divine author. It only attacks one side of the debate and does not move it forward.
AA:
Both are inferences based on the complexity observed in nature coupled with an ignorance of complete knowledge.
Agreed. I'm pleased that you see it my way, but that is both your's and mine opinion only.
You pose the question, and you answer it emphatically. There is no misunderstanding. Your course for invigorating the debate is to challenge the keystone of one side of the debate to even be considered based on what you consider as factual evidence from a system(science) that you agree is ignorant of total knowledge.
AA:
Entitlements! When were they yours to hand out.
Misconstruance of meaning and context. My use of the word 'entitlement' in no way allowed the assumption that I myself was in charge of entitlements, that is merely a misapplied idiosyncratic way of thinking on your part.
are we entitled to claim a divine authorship to it? The simple response to this basic question is (if we are to be honest and respectful to the debate) a resounding 'NO'...we are not entitled to claim a divine authorship.
But we are not talking about anything, you quite clearly set the tone and the topic using complexity in nature and a divine authorship. You are specific and so is your point. Moving the "clarification in comprehension" goal posts! Please.
I stated '...are we entitled...', by which clarification of its comprehension asks...are we entitled to claim anything being a truth when there is no factual basis to support such claim?
Believe!, and of course this belief is backed by hard empirical evidence, as you require from others.
I don't believe we are, and ought not to, lest we allow illusions into our perceptions, and misunderstandings into our knowledge.
Where do you state this in the post. You don't. Even though you mention the debate having two distinct sides. I did it for you. Fairly and honestly. To late to concede the point now, but thank you anyway.
AA:
So your point appears only to chastise one side
Absolutely not! We must apply the same yardstick to both sides, and I do. An illusion in poorly misunderstood science is as equally damaging as an illusion in faith.
The rest of your post is mere hubris, and requires no response except its dismissal as irrelevant to the debate.
How is it an act of disregarding the natural process when I express a belief that those natural process have an intelligence behind them? Here read it again:
But how does one arrive at a conclusion at there being NO divine authority from merely explaining a complex aspect of nature that seems, to the observer, to have a design component in it?
Elysiumfire is in fact asking people to agree to having no entitlement to believe that a divine authorship maybe involved.
Yet leaves the opposing side with the entitlement to claim there is in fact NO divine authorship.
That respect does not then include the acceptance of established fact as a support to feel entitled to believe in a divine authority as being responsible for the agreed fact that there is design via complexity pointing to authorship.
So my question is, how is your ET hypothesis any more entitled then a belief in SI.
So you know how life started? And it was without the divine. You have evidence of this then? You can explain and fully understand the process that have achieved this which lead you to conclude that no divine authorship is involved?
Just as I can deem that your ET hypothesis is pointless and meaningless, yet it is obvious you mean it as a valid argument, and to point out your questions concerning a divine authorship, yet your claim is as empty as a claim that a divine being is outside of what we know, without proof or evidence!
That Darwinism has proven “disastrous theory” is indisputable.
“Karl Marx loved Darwinism,” writes Windchy. “To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution.”
“Darwin suits my purpose,” Marx wrote.
Darwin suited Adolf Hitler’s purposes, too.
“Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs’ advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire.”
I do believe you set the trend. Here is the factual evidence to support this claim.
...I merely responded in kind to that statement.
You are quite confused.
Who mentioned others, or support?
I don't need anyone else or some kind of fear on losing the support of your imagined others.
Dude, this is just pathetic.
What is authentic about your post? The bias within. Certainly. I agree that I have twisted this to show it as being most obvious.
So, do you not agree then that people use the facts held within the complexity of nature as a compelling argument for ID as well as against it, or are you now saying that you do not agree with this?
...I was simply acknowledging the apparent inference of ID in nature, I certainly wasn't stating that I 'do' agree with it, because I don't. I think this should clarify the confusion in your apprehension of what I was stating succinctly. What I will concede to you is maybe I should have used the word 'could' rather than 'can'.
Thus: I can agree that complexity in biological structures - from the microbial to the Blue Whale - 'point' to a seeming intelligent design attributable to the foundation of their existing...
Can you show me where science has corrected a false belief in a divine authority in this debate?
Then why exclude any answer? It is possible that that a layer will reveal a designer!
Why is it that we are not entitled to answer the question with a divine authority now?
You mean you have hard empirical evidence of what created life and that there is no intelligence in life at all, anywhere? An amazing discovery indeed.
My statement is totally supported...Are you saying that this is not the case.
Is the system and process of evolution, the change and adaption simply lucky, random, stupid?
Has anyone thought about how much power the governments have gained (taken from) the people by accepting and pushing the ever evolving theory of evolution?
Originally posted by John Matrix
Has anyone thought about how much power the governments have gained (taken from) the people by accepting and pushing the ever evolving theory of evolution? I see it as a very big conspiracy to program the masses and take power from the people.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
Oh please, there was no point at all in that statement.
Originally posted by sirnex
......Yes, us atheists have evil spies in all corners of the globe......
I do not say that at all, ever. Can point out where I said that. What I say is that I see intelligence in nature. I also say that we cannot rule out a divine authority as author simply by observing the complexity of nature. I also argue that people on one side of the debate are entitled to claim an authorship, given that people are free to claim there is no authorship by using the same observations in complexity of nature. Are you claiming that there is NO intelligence in nature? Because I claim there is intelligence in nature, that nature itself is intelligent. Do you have intelligence? Are you an aspect of Nature? Also of importance to your argument is this: how can you distance a process from nature? You claimed I was disregarding process of nature. Process of and in nature are nature themselves. If these process are governing the outcomes of nature, then can it not be argued that this is also intelligence within nature?
Originally posted by sirnex
Ahhhh, OK! So what you are getting at is that the natural processes/forces of the universe wouldn't work without some supernatural intelligence moving each individual atom by hand in concert?
Yes, it takes care of your assumptions.
Well, that take's care of a lot of things,
Yes, especially when this caricature is simply all in your head. And your head seems to be firmly up your own a......
not only that but now hopefully this SI can dismantle prisons as it's SI causing people to do bad things. Ah crap, SI is also causing me to argue against it. Man, that SI guy is one tricky little...
So you cannot rule out a divine authority from merely observing the complexity of life. Thank You. If you cannot rule it out, then people are entitled to argue, believe or accept that one is possible from observing that complexity.
But how does one arrive at a conclusion at there being NO divine authority from merely explaining a complex aspect of nature that seems, to the observer, to have a design component in it?
You can't arrive at a conclusion and then make thing's fit to that conclusion!
We do not know how matter becomes from energy, we think the Higgs field and boson are responsible for the standard model. But how can they claim the Higgs field and boson is responsible if they can't show it or understand how it works?
Just because one doesn't know how something works doesn't mean you can just claim it works by SI.
This is your criteria. There are people who believe they know. As it stands, you personally have not seen enough evidence to accept SI. Others have enough evidence, some of that evidence they claim is the complexity of life.
If you don't know, then you don't know and need to find out. Not say you know and then try to make everything fit it. As stands, there is no evidence or proof of SI.
There are those that will site the complexity in nature as evidence. I accept that they do this. elysiumfire was arguing that this not be the case. I disagree. As I argue that both sides ague from ignorance when we include the complexity of nature as evidence. So both sides are entitled to their opinion based on that complexity.
No one is saying SI is impossible, all we're saying is there is no evidence of SI initially.
People run around stating that there is evidence that there is no SI by pointing to evolution or other aspects of the universe that we truly do not unnderstand, etc. Which is why I point out that it should not exclude others from using it as evidence to support SI, as the argument was about the entitlement to claim divine authorship. Remember when I ask about the chastising of one side?
Nothing more than a conclusion that because we don't know then it must be SI/ID and then the run around to try and make it fit which is impossible because you need to show SI does indeed exist first before you can make everything fit it.
Darwins Original theory presumes that life came from non-life. And that is was purely naturalistic and was one of undirected common decent.
We say evolution is true because we observed certain things in nature happening that allowed for us to 'discover' the process going on.
You need to read what you just wrote. You think this argues against SI? What organic molecules have we found in the deep recesses of space? When did we go to the deep recesses of space and recover these?
What we haven't discovered is how organic molecules combine to form life, but we do indeed know that organic molecules can be created in the lab and the deep recesses of space, so that isn't even in question because it has been observed. The only thing missing is the variables that allow for the processes that allow for life to occur.
I don't care what it sounds like.
I read it differently myself............ This is what your end of the argument sounds like to us.
Originally posted by atlasastro
.......
Have you heard scientists and engineers talk of an "Artificial Intelligence"? That implies a natural intelligence exists.
You know I've thought of that before...
Pretty sound logic, hey skeptics??
We claim life came from a primordial soup yet cannot show this or understand how it worked, we claim evolution started from that, but cannot show how it started to work from that first basic primordial soup.
This is your criteria. There are people who believe they know. As it stands, you personally have not seen enough evidence to accept SI. Others have enough evidence, some of that evidence they claim is the complexity of life.
Darwins Original theory presumes that life came from non-life. And that is was purely naturalistic and was one of undirected common decent.
How is this supported by observation?
Have we observed organic life come from the non-organic? No.
DNA(which Darwin was ignorant of), could that be considered as a directing influence now that we are understanding i more ? I could say yes.
Did Darwin or anyone else observe this? No. It was a theory. Is this testable via the scientifc method? No.
When it came to us. Organic Chemistry is found in the tails of comets and asteroids.
You need to read what you just wrote. You think this argues against SI? What organic molecules have we found in the deep recesses of space?
Wiki
Perhaps the most powerful techniques for detection of individual molecules is radio astronomy which has resulted in the detection of over a hundred interstellar species, including radicals and ions, and organic (i.e., carbon) compounds, such as alcohols, acids, aldehydes, and ketones. One of the most abundant interstellar molecules, and among the easiest to detect with radio waves (due to its strong electric dipole moment) is CO (carbon monoxide). In fact, CO is such a common interstellar molecule that it is used to map out molecular regions
Originally posted by elysiumfire
No. I can show that it was you that set the trend......I merely responded in kind to that statement.
You are quite confused.
Really. I don't think you do, I think you are inferring one though.
I see both the reason and shape of your posting
Your argument is based on futility, so if it is headed that way it is not my fault. If you want to gamble, go ahead. I don't play dice.
and I would wager so do others reading the posts. Yours is not to debate, but to drive the discussion into circuitous redundancy in hope that the debate fades into futility.
Of course you are free and entitled to believe what you will. But have you peeled away the true nature of my posts as to find a true cause?
Well, ...... I believe even you are unsure of what you say.
Why would you mention others when I was simply replying to your post? Whatever dude.
Er...I did, remember me...I'm the one whom seems to have garnered your attention, and you have now garnered mine. So let us turn to another piece of your nonsense...
Not only have you imagined that they would not support me, but now you are claiming that my posts have stopped them posting. Why even inject them into the discussion between you and I?If they have stopped posting.
The others are not imagined, they have simply stopped posting. The debate was ambling along merrily until you turned up and turned it into a illogical-fest.
Who cares what room there is for support. What don't you understand about me having a reply to you which has nothing to do with anyone else, their support or "room for that support" that you imagine is not there. I am arguing your points, not posting for support!
Your posts give no room for their support, so it is well and good that you say you don't need anyone else, because you isolate yourself in the delivery of what you say.
Yes. After all I am the one who thinks that there are imaginary people, who won't give me their imaginary support because I did not leave imaginary room, and now they have imaginarily stopped posting.
Well of course it would be, afterall...we are dealing with your jumbled mind.
Good. I state that what you believe I twisted merely revealed that bias.
I thank you for your admission of twisting context and meaning, this confession is now open for all to see. Am I bias? I certainly show a predilection towards the dynamics of evolutionary theory, and I don't hide it.
But your bias certainly leads you to believe it is unreasonable to infer one. Is that correct. Is that why you feel people are not entitled to infer SI from the complexity of design given that your reason is established in what can be shown as fact, yet both sides are arguing from ignorance. In this case your ignorance is acceptable whilst others are not. Am I clear on that Bias?
I don't draw on God or SI to account for the inference of design in complex biological structures...so yes, I am bias, but not unreasonably so.
As you are stating that the Idea behind your post is to set a middle ground for further debate, of course you could have. Do you really believe that a middle ground will be formed when you argue from a bias that is set to dismantle an entitlement that is at the very core of the debate. Seriously. This is your answer? What debate are you furthering?
What I will concede to you is maybe I should have used the word 'could' rather than 'can'.
Does this make a belief in SI false in this debate? No. Because we are using complexity in nature. Your example merely corrects dogma and doctrine in christianity, not an SI claimed from an inference inspired by the complexity of life. I believe the debate is broader and more complex than any single religious description of what is SI. But I totally understand what you are saying in that regard. I agree that these belief may use complexity in design now to support their own beliefs. I believe they are entitled to do that.
Here's one...it is believed by some Christians that the earth was created (by a divine authority) only 6000+ years ago, ....... give or take a millenium. So, what is a reasonable thinking man to accept, the hearsay of faith, or the facts uncovered by the scientific method? I know what I choose to accept.
Cool, because the debate is not about you. It is about a course that will move it forward. Not move it forward in your direction. So! Why exclude it from the debate, like you post inspires us to accept.
I agree...I have to concede that, and if it does, supported by empirical evidence, then I will be only too happy to change my stance, but as of yet I need not do so.
No. People are claiming that ID is evidence. That the complexity of nature is evidence. As both sides are arguing from ignorance in relation to the cause of the complexity of nature, both sides are equal. Complexity via evolution cannot show cause any more than complexity by ID show SI. If you want to move forward, telling people what they can and cannot infer from their own ignorance is rather futile. Your course of action to further this debate is futile, because you are asking people to accept your avenue of understanding at the expense of their own. It is glaringly obvious that this debate does not work that way. Which is why people like you are so entertaining.
Simply because there is no empirical evidence. I do not state that one is not entitled to believe by their faith that ID purports to divine authority, but that they are not entitled to claim it as fact, because their is no evidence to support that it is fact. It is becoming rather tiresome to be going round in this circuitous reasoning when earlier statements announce these points...can we at least move forward now?
Can you prove it is an inference or is it just your perception?
Your statement is not supported at all. Your statement and the rest of the paragraph I have truncated in quotation is mere opinion about inference culled from your perception...I can certainly realise the irony in that.
How did DNA become autonomous. How did inorganic matter become autonomous organic DNA. Is this autonomy inferred to have occurred naturally. Or do you have evidence and observations of this. I hope you can see my point now, because this is how the debate will go forward. When we start to answer these questions and people won't have to infer from any side at all about Evolution as fact or SI as inference.
It's all about the dynamics of interaction within the environment which are affective upon the autonomous replicating sequencing in the DNA. If the environment remains consistently stable, then external influences affecting the processes in DNA replication will be small. Conversely, if the environment undergoes rapid changes and is consistently unstable, then the processes in DNA replication will reflect that, even to the point of wiping out organisms whose DNA cannot adapt quick enough to the changes.
Your statement is not supported at all. It is mere opinion about inference culled from your perception. I can see how confused you are from going in circles.
For instance, with regard to our human bodies, I would say (and this is opinion only) that in evolutionary terms we have reached a cul-de-sac. Our bodies are too structurally complex for further evolutionary adaptation. We will need to use our intelligence to overcome extremes in environmental changes.
Nothing further in your post requires or warrants a response.
I am pretty sure that you are confused. By bias. By a standard you claim you want set but which is impossible to set, perhaps even ridiculous in its very suggestion. By claims of what one side should be entitled to infer, when ignorance is present in both sides. All you are establishing is what a fact is as we perceive it based on a scientific system you admit is ignorant of total knowledge. In which case how can any one of us really be sure of what is actual fact, and then go about making any entitled opinion.
Well, I had thought to leave the thread alone, ........ I believe even you are unsure of what you say
I do not say that at all, ever. Can point out where I said that. What I say is that I see intelligence in nature.
S: (n) intelligence (the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience)
I also say that we cannot rule out a divine authority as author simply by observing the complexity of nature.
Are you claiming that there is NO intelligence in nature? Because I claim there is intelligence in nature, that nature itself is intelligent. Do you have intelligence? Are you an aspect of Nature?
Process of and in nature are nature themselves. If these process are governing the outcomes of nature, then can it not be argued that this is also intelligence within nature?
So you cannot rule out a divine authority from merely observing the complexity of life. Thank You. If you cannot rule it out, then people are entitled to argue, believe or accept that one is possible from observing that complexity.
We claim life came from a primordial soup yet cannot show this or understand how it worked, we claim evolution started from that, but cannot show how it started to work from that first basic primordial soup.
Yet people claim that evolution is responsible for life.
Is that the same as a cause? Is that understanding exactly how it works? Or is it just describing the observed effects of something we do not understand?
Then can we truly claim evolution is fact? Or just the fact we observe a trend without knowledge of how it truly works or what was it's cause.
How can people claim that forces exist if they do not understand them? They are merely allocating a description or a name to forces unseen and incomprehensible, yet have an effect.
Yet when people do it with SI? Tsk Tsk.
So people can ponder and claim that there is an SI as a cause. It is up to them to prove the claim.
Others have enough evidence, some of that evidence they claim is the complexity of life.
There are those that will site the complexity in nature as evidence. I accept that they do this. elysiumfire was arguing that this not be the case. I disagree. As I argue that both sides ague from ignorance when we include the complexity of nature as evidence. So both sides are entitled to their opinion based on that complexity.
Which is why I point out that it should not exclude others from using it as evidence to support SI, as the argument was about the entitlement to claim divine authorship. Remember when I ask about the chastising of one side?
Darwins Original theory presumes that life came from non-life. And that is was purely naturalistic and was one of undirected common decent.
We now have theory within theory that argues against Darwin's original Idea of survival of the fittest.
Now, can you prove it? You would answer yes, of course. How? By running around and showing me all the parts you make fit.
You can't arrive at a conclusion and then make thing's fit to that conclusion!
You need to read what you just wrote. You think this argues against SI? What organic molecules have we found in the deep recesses of space? When did we go to the deep recesses of space and recover these?
When you mention "variables", can one not ask that we entertain SI as a possible variable. I mean if you cannot rule it out by it being impossible, then as a variable it is possible.
Have you heard scientists and engineers talk of an "Artificial Intelligence"? That implies a natural intelligence exists.
Yes that was a statement of fact. Whilst you reply was a personal attack.
I don't think you do, I think you are inferring one though.
I have offered debate.
Well I admit I am being facetious. But with good purpose.
But your bias certainly leads you to believe it is unreasonable to infer one. Is that correct.
...you actually quote this and yet you ask if my bias leads me to a belief that it is unreasonable to infer God or SI as accounting for what looks like ID in complex biological structures. The answer to your redundant question is already stated there in the quote for you to comprehend. Perhaps, it flew over your head (as usual)?
I do not state that one is not entitled to believe by their faith that ID purports to divine authority, but that they are not entitled to claim it as fact, because there is no evidence to support that it is fact.
People are claiming that ID is evidence. That the complexity of nature is evidence.
As both sides are arguing from ignorance in relation to the cause of the complexity of nature, both sides are equal.
How did DNA become autonomous. How did inorganic matter become autonomous organic DNA.
Show a complete argument that rules out SI.