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.

 

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 
Wow, I quoted SECULAR scientists who have agreed since the 1960s that Miller used the wrong atmosphere conditions.

He used a Hydrogen-methane atmosphere and no scientists, (secular) agree that this is what the early atmosphere was like, they thought so at the time Miller did the experiment, not today, not since the 1960s...

Sorry.




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Ahhhhhh…

Irreducible complexity.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) Irreducible complexity suffers from the same problem as “Intelligent Design” and the concept that “if something is statistically impossible it HAS to have been designed by an intelligent designer.”

That problem is a total lack of scientific corroboration.

Again, believing that if something is irreducibly complex it HAS to have been designed by an intelligent designer is not proof that if something is irreducibly complex it HAS to have been designed by an intelligent designer.

Repeat after me…

“SCIENTIFIC METHOD.”

Where is the hypothesis that attempts to explain the supposed phenomenon that “if something is irreducibly complex it HAS to have been designed by an intelligent designer”?

Where are the predictions that were derived from the above-mentioned hypothesis?

Where is the outline of the proposed experiments meant to corroborate the above mentioned hypothesis and the predictions derived from said hypothesis?

Where is the data gathered from the above-mentioned experiments?

Is that data going to be shared so it can be drug across the coals of peer review?

The concept that if something can be shown to be Irreducibly complex then it has to be accepted as proof of an intelligent designer has no plausibility when looked at from the point of view of scientific method.

Like it or not, that is the reality of the situation.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Well, you seem to have attempted to pick apart the example provided, and I'll admit that there is debate regarding Newton's explanation of the law of gravity; however, that doesn't disprove my actual point, nor is that peticular debate on-topic regarding why people say that intelligent design is not scientific.

In science a theory does mean that something has not been proven, and very few scientific theories make it to law status. Evolution may only be a theory, but, unlike ID, it's a scientific theory.

Since you completely glossed over the actual message of the post, now you know.

[edit on 11/5/09 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Even "Science" Magazine said in 1995 that the experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because;



Unfortunately, the sciencemag in 2008 reports that the miller experiment was data was reanalyzed, discovering 22 amino acids rather than 5.
Sciencemag


Miller's 1950s experiments used, besides the apparatus known in textbooks, one that generated a hot water mist in the spark flask, simulating a water vapor-rich volcanic eruption. We found the original extracts of this experiment in Miller's material and reanalyzed them. The volcanic apparatus produced a wider variety of amino acids than the classic one. Release of reduced gases in volcanic eruptions accompanied by lightning could have been common on the early Earth. Prebotic compounds synthesized in these environments could have locally accumulated, where they could have undergone further processing.


Catherine Brahic. "Volcanic lightning may have sparked life on Earth — earth — 16 October 2008 — New Scientist Environment". NewScientist. Retrieved 2008-10-17.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 
Who cares if they got 22 amino acids or 120?? The point is, Miller used a hydrogen-methane 'atmosphere' for his experiment, and since the 1960s the consensus is the early atmosphere wasn't a hydrogen-methane rich atmosphere.

When scientists replicate the Miller experiment with an atmosphere similar to what scientists now think the early atmosphere was comprised of they still get "organic compounds".

Formaldehyde and Cyanide.. but hey, we can still tell kids we get "organic compounds" right??!!



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 



Here dude, you edited this part out of your reply:


"'the early atmosphere looked NOTHING like the Miller-Urey simulation.' "Science" #270 (1995)"



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Who cares how the experiment is conducted. Come on folks, any way we slice and dice the damn thing it still proves one thing, organic molecules can and do form from non-organic molecules under certain conditions. That alone proves that a God is not required to achieve organic molecules, the next step is getting these organic molecules to form together into self replicating molecules.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


"organic' means carbon based.

"Organic" doesn't immediately mean = living.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Who cares how the experiment is conducted. Come on folks, any way we slice and dice the damn thing it still proves one thing, organic molecules can and do form from non-organic molecules under certain conditions. That alone proves that a God is not required to achieve organic molecules, the next step is getting these organic molecules to form together into self replicating molecules.


And secondly, it's CRITICAL to know that if the Miller experiment is done with the atmosphere that scientists now believe comprised the ancient atmosphere the only "organic molecules" that develop are formaldehyde and cyanide.

Formaldehyde destroys proteins and amino acids. When you mix the two u get embalming fluid. it's a fascinating experiment to biology teachers, but to Geochemists it's a practical JOKE.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



"Organic" doesn't immediately mean = living.


I never said it did; You do understand we are carbon based lifeforms?


And secondly, it's CRITICAL to know that if the Miller experiment is done with the atmosphere that scientists now believe comprised the ancient atmosphere the only "organic molecules" that develop are formaldehyde and cyanide.


Now believe; Again, so what... Honestly? How many time's have scientists revised the composition of Earth's early atmosphere? Point of the fact is *organic molecules naturally arise from inorganic molecules through natural means* Hell, we don't even need the Miller-Urey experiment to see this. Planets and moons in our own solar system are rich in organic compounds and possibly life. Spectral analysis of nebula's show organic compounds as well. The fact that organic compounds can and do arise without a creator making them says a lot.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



"Organic" doesn't immediately mean = living.


I never said it did; You do understand we are carbon based lifeforms?


And secondly, it's CRITICAL to know that if the Miller experiment is done with the atmosphere that scientists now believe comprised the ancient atmosphere the only "organic molecules" that develop are formaldehyde and cyanide.


Now believe; Again, so what... Honestly? How many time's have scientists revised the composition of Earth's early atmosphere? Point of the fact is *organic molecules naturally arise from inorganic molecules through natural means* Hell, we don't even need the Miller-Urey experiment to see this. Planets and moons in our own solar system are rich in organic compounds and possibly life. Spectral analysis of nebula's show organic compounds as well. The fact that organic compounds can and do arise without a creator making them says a lot.
Well, my version of a Creator also made the heavens when He made the Earth... Just sayin.

You're trying to imply, yet again, that just because something is an 'organic' molecule that it means = "LIFE"

This is hardly the case, 'organic' means "carbon-based". An enormous amount of things on this Earth are carbon-based, yet aren't even close to a basic amino acid, or protein.

Saying something is an 'organic compound' and trying to imply that it means living or capable of life is absurd. Yes, we are carbon-based, as are plants and animals, yet we are not the ONLY carbon-based molecules and structures in the universe. The Miller experiment was based on false data, and yet 50 year almost after the fact it's STILL in kid's textbooks implying that it was accurate, when it wasn't whatsoever. he used a bogus atmoshphere for the test, and when a correct atmosphere simulation is used the "organic molecules" that are formed are carbon-based molecules that DESTROY life. Formaldehyde and Cyanide.

All Miller did in essense was make a machine to fabricate embalming fluid, and millions of kids are led to believe he proved life is possible from non-life.

Why are we lying to kids??



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No, but obviously the development of organic compounds would be the first step towards developing life. Even the most primitive semi-life, viruses, are made of molecular chains. Yo uahve to have the organic molecules before you can have a bacteriophage!



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Well it's been said that the more ridiculous an idea is the more appealing it is. So called high intelligence produced a phenomenal number of stupid people in the last few centuries alone. When ego, desires and intellect are mixed together more often than not you get stupidity. The condition of the world is a good example of that. People are buying into ridiculous causes and ludicrous explanations no matter what so called intellectual capacity they may have. The NWO is built by high intelligent people with no moral fiber or regard for humanity. They believe in causes that are ridiculous. Most people betray truth so they can feel they are on solid ground, are on the right side, are superior, loved, secure, or some other deep rooted fundamental need they can not find in truth. It requires a different capacity to really think clearly. "Intelligence" is no measure of the inner conditions of an individual. Often, intellectual facilities indicate a strong attachment with the material world and an allegiance with material gods who help to facilitate worldly understanding and illusions.

The general rule is that whenever an explanation is clear, simple, and statistically reasonable it stands a good chance of being true. When an explanation is complex and statistically ridiculous it stands a pretty good chance of making sense to intellectuals.

If I say "I skinned my knee because I fell down" It's easy to understand, but if I say "I skinned my knee because I was being chased by a chubracabra and had to jump over a werewolf then found myself in a green fog and was being levitated by a tractor beam from a ufo trying to abduct me, but fortunately I fell into a time tunnel just as the solar flare annihilated the chubacabra and then I came out of the time tunnel onto time square and tripped an fell." the mind finds itself more engaged by the story. If one person says that makes sense then a hundred will agree with it, then a thousand. If one then says no way, they have to face the egos of the thousands who no have a personal stake in no being wrong.

Massive psyops have been applied to make ridiculous appear logical to the minds of these intellectuals. I believe the ultimate reason is not as much a desire to repress truth as a vehicle for testing control and determine what are the various reasoning capacities of humanity and what does it take to control them. The fact that something like "Evolution" can be promoted and get a buy in from a lot of people tells the manipulators something very important about what it takes to control a large segment of the population.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


i think this is much better than the Miller Urey for this discussion. theyve succeeded in some of the major requirements to make life.


the building blocks RNA made in a lab.


According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”



www.wired.com...

making a lab made molecule self replicate and evolve.

www.newscientist.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
Well it's been said that the more ridiculous an idea is the more appealing it is. So called high intelligence produced a phenomenal number of stupid people in the last few centuries alone. When ego, desires and intellect are mixed together more often than not you get stupidity. The condition of the world is a good example of that. People are buying into ridiculous causes and ludicrous explanations no matter what so called intellectual capacity they may have. The NWO is built by high intelligent people with no moral fiber or regard for humanity. They believe in causes that are ridiculous. Most people betray truth so they can feel they are on solid ground, are on the right side, are superior, loved, secure, or some other deep rooted fundamental need they can not find in truth. It requires a different capacity to really think clearly. "Intelligence" is no measure of the inner conditions of an individual. Often, intellectual facilities indicate a strong attachment with the material world and an allegiance with material gods who help to facilitate worldly understanding and illusions.

The general rule is that whenever an explanation is clear, simple, and statistically reasonable it stands a good chance of being true. When an explanation is complex and statistically ridiculous it stands a pretty good chance of making sense to intellectuals.

If I say "I skinned my knee because I fell down" It's easy to understand, but if I say "I skinned my knee because I was being chased by a chubracabra and had to jump over a werewolf then found myself in a green fog and was being levitated by a tractor beam from a ufo trying to abduct me, but fortunately I fell into a time tunnel just as the solar flare annihilated the chubacabra and then I came out of the time tunnel onto time square and tripped an fell." the mind finds itself more engaged by the story. If one person says that makes sense then a hundred will agree with it, then a thousand. If one then says no way, they have to face the egos of the thousands who no have a personal stake in no being wrong.

Massive psyops have been applied to make ridiculous appear logical to the minds of these intellectuals. I believe the ultimate reason is not as much a desire to repress truth as a vehicle for testing control and determine what are the various reasoning capacities of humanity and what does it take to control them. The fact that something like "Evolution" can be promoted and get a buy in from a lot of people tells the manipulators something very important about what it takes to control a large segment of the population.



You can psycho-analyze this all you want, and dont get me wrong, there are many who consider these things for the very reasons you mention, but lets not generalize here.


I think that religious aspects aside, the Intelligent Design concept is perfectly validated, if only due to our current sciences lack of ability to explain our most fundamental questions, however I do agree that blind faith in matters such as these, while obviously allowed, really hinders progress.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Outlawstar

I think that religious aspects aside, the Intelligent Design concept is perfectly validated, if only due to our current sciences lack of ability to explain our most fundamental questions,


wrong.
even if science was not being able to answer a single question, that STILL wouldnt make ID valid.

not having an answer from one thing does not even come close to meaning the other thing is automatically acceptable. it still needs to be supported.


at this point, i think this thread has fairly effectively shown that ID isnt valid.
the majority of this thread is attacking science and evolution in an attempt to shift the burden of proof off of those trying to say Intelligent Design is in fact science.
disproving evolution or abiogenesis or the flying spaghetti monster (if you somehow magically could) doesnt give credibility to ID.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Saying something is an 'organic compound' and trying to imply that it means living or capable of life is absurd. Yes, we are carbon-based, as are plants and animals, yet we are not the ONLY carbon-based molecules and structures in the universe.


I'm not implying at all that carbon based organic compounds only mean life lol. Yet we can not ignore the fact that we *are carbon based organic life*, a series of compounds that has been shown to occur naturally.


The Miller experiment was based on false data, and yet 50 year almost after the fact it's STILL in kid's textbooks implying that it was accurate, when it wasn't whatsoever. he used a bogus atmoshphere for the test, and when a correct atmosphere simulation is used the "organic molecules" that are formed are carbon-based molecules that DESTROY life. Formaldehyde and Cyanide.


Correct atmosphere? Your full of it my friend lol. I think what you mean is speculated correct atmosphere.



All Miller did in essense was make a machine to fabricate embalming fluid, and millions of kids are led to believe he proved life is possible from non-life.


Under certain conditions, and yet under other certain conditions other compounds are naturally generated. When we look into space, yet again other compounds are generated.


Why are we lying to kids??


I don't know, why do you not want them to know that organic compounds can't be naturally produced without God's help?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



I think that religious aspects aside, the Intelligent Design concept is perfectly validated, if only due to our current sciences lack of ability to explain our most fundamental questions, however I do agree that blind faith in matters such as these, while obviously allowed, really hinders progress.


Nonsense; You can't create a valid theory by basing it on holes in another theory. As it stands, ID alone has produced no evidence and no testable predictions. It is not science in it's current form, it is instead God bound creationism and most of it's proponents all agree that God is the so called designer.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

Originally posted by Outlawstar

I think that religious aspects aside, the Intelligent Design concept is perfectly validated, if only due to our current sciences lack of ability to explain our most fundamental questions,


wrong.
even if science was not being able to answer a single question, that STILL wouldnt make ID valid.

not having an answer from one thing does not even come close to meaning the other thing is automatically acceptable. it still needs to be supported.


at this point, i think this thread has fairly effectively shown that ID isnt valid.
the majority of this thread is attacking science and evolution in an attempt to shift the burden of proof off of those trying to say Intelligent Design is in fact science.
disproving evolution or abiogenesis or the flying spaghetti monster (if you somehow magically could) doesnt give credibility to ID.





Hey relax, if you read on I say that blind faith however is useless, my point is the concept, whether scientifically backed or not, is valid, in the sense that theres nothing particularly impossible about it, at least not in my view, I truly dont know the answers, however thats not to say I will brush something off that doesint fit my paradigm.

I am at least smart enough to know, how much I dont know.

There is no doubting that modern science has done a hell of a lot to hinder areas of research that could have proven extremely useful for humans, modern science has a history of coverup and secrecy, dont get me wrong I have nothing against science, in fact I embrace cartesian thinking, however the distrust that is gaining momentum amongst the grassroots for authority, is not limited to the political spectrum, and for good reason.

Alls Im sayng is, its important to recognize the religious aspect of science and the type of thinking it indoctrinates.

Its important to remember who truly owns the scientific establishment at the top and the socio-political aspect that has become more a part of sciences reach over the last few centuries, it has become a dominant political tool and a belief system all in itself, lets not kid ourselves here, some of the steadfast beliefs of modern science, presented in textbooks as FACT are anything but.

Just saying take everything with a grain of salt, and keep an open mind no matter who is telling you the so called truth.

Please dont extrapolate anything from this post and re-arrange it into the concept that I have some sort of agenda or belief system, Im simply here to learn as much as I can and question whatever I feel I need to.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



I think that religious aspects aside, the Intelligent Design concept is perfectly validated, if only due to our current sciences lack of ability to explain our most fundamental questions, however I do agree that blind faith in matters such as these, while obviously allowed, really hinders progress.


Nonsense; You can't create a valid theory by basing it on holes in another theory. As it stands, ID alone has produced no evidence and no testable predictions. It is not science in it's current form, it is instead God bound creationism and most of it's proponents all agree that God is the so called designer.



I didint MEAN in scientific terms, Im not short-sighted enough to pretend something is validated that has not been, my point ws rather more ethereal, simply that the actual concept in terms of just that, isint, at least in my view, as far-fetched a belief as some others may feel, however like I said, blind faith is the wrong way to go, and again Im NOT implying some sort of deity, the lone wolf type, no, if ID is ever defined I believe it will be defined as a sort of mutuallly beneficial "intelligence", a sort of feedback mechanism that neither side is truly aware of, which perhaps in the fractal and holgraphic universe sense, is propogated ad infinitum, perhaps akin to the billions of creatures who consider the human body home, we benefit each other, we both allow the other to exist, however in the case of the creatures, and tbh most humans , we are blissfully unaware, just a thought and NOTHING more.
I think a lot, so sometimes I come up with some pretty wacky stuff^___^

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Outlawstar]




top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join