Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 24
7
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


There was science before.. Mayans for example.. But never mind..

The rest, all that dating stuff... Too many different results. Same as the Sphinx. There have been reports that Tiwanaku was built around the time you said, others say 1600-1200 BC, others say 12.000, 14.000, and yes even 17.000 (that is the first time it was dated I believe, while 14.000 is the last). The stones can not be dated by carbon-dating, and they date other artifacts than the structures themselves, which might be newer than the site itself. Then there's the way the ruins are covered. There isn't much dust up there in those mountains, and the site is covered to a depth that suggests that the site has been there for longer than just 2000-3000 years..

So yeah.. Draw the conclusion that you want, I'll draw mine.




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


There was science before.. Mayans for example.. But never mind..


No no no. Now come on. The Mayans didn't have a hard and fast "scientific method" which seems to be your basis for determining what is science and what isn't. You also can't say the Mayans had science, while so vociferously defending a bunch of people who say they're too stupid to build step pyramids.


The rest, all that dating stuff... Too many different results. Same as the Sphinx. There have been reports that Tiwanaku was built around the time you said, others say 1600-1200 BC, others say 12.000, 14.000, and yes even 17.000 (that is the first time it was dated I believe, while 14.000 is the last). The stones can not be dated by carbon-dating, and they date other artifacts than the structures themselves, which might be newer than the site itself. Then there's the way the ruins are covered. There isn't much dust up there in those mountains, and the site is covered to a depth that suggests that the site has been there for longer than just 2000-3000 years..

So yeah.. Draw the conclusion that you want, I'll draw mine.


Yeah. Choosing to remain ignorant is known as "stupidity", friend.

But hey. if it's easier for you to believe space aliens came and built a city at random in Bolivia and then left absolutely no other trace of themselves at the location, than to believe it was in fact the skilled work of the native indians, well, I guess that says quite a bit about you.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

No no no. Now come on. The Mayans didn't have a hard and fast "scientific method" which seems to be your basis for determining what is science and what isn't. You also can't say the Mayans had science, while so vociferously defending a bunch of people who say they're too stupid to build step pyramids.

Of course they didn't.. That's why their calendar is so accurate.. -.- And at the same time you would claim that discovery of fire did have a scientific method? Don't make me laugh.

But again, I'm done with the discussion between philosophy and science. If you really want evidence that science went wrong many times and that it's not always right, just watch Crossing the Event horizon by Nassim Haramein.



Yeah. Choosing to remain ignorant is known as "stupidity", friend.

But hey. if it's easier for you to believe space aliens came and built a city at random in Bolivia and then left absolutely no other trace of themselves at the location, than to believe it was in fact the skilled work of the native indians, well, I guess that says quite a bit about you.

Fine, I'll choose to remain what you call ignorant, and I call open-minded. I don't care. I'm not taking either side btw.. I'm simply offering a different perspective, and not surprisingly, it's being ridiculed because it doesn't fit into mainstream thinking, and that's exactly my point of the same path science has gone. But whatever. I don't expect anyone to understand. If you think that says a lot about me, well, you think that. You're free to think what you want.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by vasaga]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



Of course they didn't.. That's why their calendar is so accurate.. -.- And at the same time you would claim that discovery of fire did have a scientific method? Don't make me laugh.


They didn't have science so their calendar was accurate but because there was no scientific method, then the process of learning to make fire isn't science .... wtf lol


But again, I'm done with the discussion between philosophy and science. If you really want evidence that science went wrong many times and that it's not always right, just watch Crossing the Event horizon by Nassim Haramein.


Wait, but by your definition ... It's not technically science that went wrong, it's philosophy that went wrong.


Fine, I'll choose to remain what you call ignorant, and I call open-minded. I don't care. I'm not taking either side btw.. I'm simply offering a different perspective, and not surprisingly, it's being ridiculed because it doesn't fit into mainstream thinking, and that's exactly my point of the same path science has gone. But whatever. I don't expect anyone to understand. If you think that says a lot about me, well, you think that. You're free to think what you want.


Your not being ridiculed because it's a different perspective, your being ridiculed because there is simply no evidence for the view that space aliens came down to Earth to make humans and build stone monuments. Until there is evidence, the scientific community will always ridicule people who claim truth without evidence. Science is about evidence, not empty speculation and claims of truth.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Lol @ mayapart.. you can't spot sarcasm? xD



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread516323/pg19#pid7511954]post by sirnex[www.hyperhistory.net...


@Sirnex- Here Are Some More Flood Stories Similar To Genesis...
Of Coarse They Are All Completely The Same But Some Of The Concepts Are Similar.

[edit on 10/15/2009 by Key2life]

[edit on 10/15/2009 by Key2life]

[edit on 10/15/2009 by Key2life]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Key2life
 


It appears that the site may possibly be a Christian site. I'm basing that off of the numerous times it mentions, 'just like genesis or Noah's ark'. The problem there being, The genesis flood is a plagiarism of the Sumerian account. Of course, that in itself isn't an end all to the argument, but I will verify what the actual mythologies say themselves as the site doesn't cite sources and just claims the stories say this. It also must need to be mentioned again, flood myths only exist around bodies of water and there are numerous mythologies that never discuss a flood myth.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Just because there are older stories of a major flood that are corrupted is not proof that the account of Noah's flood is not the correct one. However it is said that if there were not a mass reduction of the earth population to 8 people at one point. It is been claimed that there would have been bodies stacked 14 miles high that over the entire earths surface today. The earth could not take the so called millions of years of population growth.

Other things of interest. The bible's account of a curse on the earth. At creation there were no flesh eating animals. Like looking in a mirror perfection looking at perfection. The curse mixed every thing to be good and evil. As noted in the bible a lion is a type of Christ that shows strength yet it is also a type of Satan as it roars and eats flesh. This mix means nothing you look at is anything less than an anomaly. A lion once had different teeth, digestive tract, non aggressive looks, did not roar etc. There is also a question of how they communicate as like the tower of babel. Even viruses communicate to each other. What happened at the tower made it such that one group could not understand each other. Also you see many animals blend in with nature for protection noted that Adam and Eve took fig leaves and did the same before God. So all this is like one grew up like Alice in wonderland and the more you begin to see it the more questions are raised as to just what is perfection in the state of nature. It comes down to proverbs 11:3 The integrity of the upright shall guide them. Integrity in hebrew means unreserved loving submission. The one thing I have learned is one of the worse things that can happen to a person is to get what they want. Your sure see that in the plaques of Egypt and by other examples in Scripture.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Markafeller
Just because there are older stories of a major flood that are corrupted is not proof that the account of Noah's flood is not the correct one.

theres nothing to say ANY are correct.

However it is said that if there were not a mass reduction of the earth population to 8 people at one point. It is been claimed that there would have been bodies stacked 14 miles high that over the entire earths surface today. The earth could not take the so called millions of years of population growth.


its called decay.


Other things of interest. The bible's account of a curse on the earth. At creation there were no flesh eating animals. Like looking in a mirror perfection looking at perfection. The curse mixed every thing to be good and evil. As noted in the bible a lion is a type of Christ that shows strength yet it is blah blah blah


totally irrelevant and lacking of sources. most of it is proselytizing.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Markafeller
 



Just because there are older stories of a major flood that are corrupted is not proof that the account of Noah's flood is not the correct one.


There is no evidence that the newer Noah knock off is the most accurate either, but there is equally no reason to doubt that it is an evolved mythology from older myths as it does appear that way.


However it is said that if there were not a mass reduction of the earth population to 8 people at one point. It is been claimed that there would have been bodies stacked 14 miles high that over the entire earths surface today. The earth could not take the so called millions of years of population growth.


If I'm not mistaken, that estimate requires an average lifespan and reproduction rate on par with today's statistics and this rate remaining constant throughout history. Since this is not the case nor ever has been the case we know this estimate is a simple act of pulling numbers out of the good old stink hole.


Other things of interest. The bible's account of a curse on the earth. At creation there were no flesh eating animals. Like looking in a mirror perfection looking at perfection. The curse mixed every thing to be good and evil. As noted in the bible a lion is a type of Christ that shows strength yet it is also a type of Satan as it roars and eats flesh. This mix means nothing you look at is anything less than an anomaly. A lion once had different teeth, digestive tract, non aggressive looks, did not roar etc.


There are two problems with this statement.

Problem one, the fossil record shows no indications of lions having been vegetarians at any point in it's evolutionary path.

Problem two is the statement implies the purposeful act of God to unleash evil which is counter-intuitive to what many religious leaders around the world describe of God.


There is also a question of how they communicate as like the tower of babel. Even viruses communicate to each other. What happened at the tower made it such that one group could not understand each other.


There is no archeological evidence that all people spoke of one language during the suggested time given in the biblical texts.



Also you see many animals blend in with nature for protection noted that Adam and Eve took fig leaves and did the same before God. So all this is like one grew up like Alice in wonderland and the more you begin to see it the more questions are raised as to just what is perfection in the state of nature. It comes down to proverbs 11:3 The integrity of the upright shall guide them. Integrity in hebrew means unreserved loving submission. The one thing I have learned is one of the worse things that can happen to a person is to get what they want. Your sure see that in the plaques of Egypt and by other examples in Scripture.


There are many thing's that a man or woman could 'want' and by not obtaining those thing's in certain given situations could be detrimental to the individual. The generalized statement that 'bad thing's happen when a person get's what they want' is unwarranted drivel.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
you should read Keith Ward's book on such things "doubting Dawkins".



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ewokdisco
 


you should post something substantial and useful.
and have you bothered checking out any of the claims in that book?

either way, provide us with what you consider are the most convincing arguments from the book.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I Think This Whole Argument Leads Us In A Circle. It Come Down To You Can't Prove ID Exists Therefore You Can't Prove ID Doesn't. So Yes Keep ID Out Of Science. ID Isn't Science And May Never Be.
But Even Richard Dawkin Said, "You Can't Disprove ID Or God With Absolute Certainty". So This Debate Is A Never Ending Debate. In Fact All Theories Relating To How The Universe Came About Are All Speculations Since Non Can Ever Be Proven Or Are Very Unlikely To Do So. But Don't Get Me Wrong It Is Quite Fun To Speculate On These Matters.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Key2life
reply to post by sirnex
 


I Think This Whole Argument Leads Us In A Circle. It Come Down To You Can't Prove ID Exists Therefore You Can't Prove ID Doesn't. So Yes Keep ID Out Of Science. ID Isn't Science And May Never Be.
But Even Richard Dawkin Said, "You Can't Disprove ID Or God With Absolute Certainty". So This Debate Is A Never Ending Debate. In Fact All Theories Relating To How The Universe Came About Are All Speculations Since Non Can Ever Be Proven Or Are Very Unlikely To Do So. But Don't Get Me Wrong It Is Quite Fun To Speculate On These Matters.




I agree, it is fun to speculate on origins of the universe, but what I dislike is claiming to have knowledge as fact for where the universe came from.

The big difference between science and creationism is that science works with theories that predict certain aspects about the universe and if those predicted things get observed, then that is evidence that the theory is on the right track.

Religion and creationism just automatically assumes God without conducting any verifiable research to prove that God exist. For all intents and purposes, ID has never been about science, it's been about pushing God into public schools. I'm not necessarily against the possibility of a God like entity, I'm just against all man made concepts of this entity, people are too arrogant and ignorant to realize that their concepts of deity are woefully wrong and concocted by the priesthoods to maintain control over their 'souls'. It's quiet sad that people don't realize this invented battle over an imaginary thing has nothing to do with saving that imaginary thing and that it's only for controlling your free will.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I Totally Agree With You!
But Like Everything I Think Science Has It Own Limits. A Few Examples Are What Existed Prior To The Big Bang Or In Other Words Where And How The Universe Came About. Another Question Could Be If Our Universe Exists In A Multiverse Or In A Sea Of Universes. I Mean All These Questions Do Have Exact Answers Or As Far As I Know And They All Fall Outside Of Science As Far As I Know. I Think There Will Always Be Mysteries That Man May Never Know.
I Think These Questions Brought About Religion Or What We Call Spirituality. We Can Even Throw In Metaphysics. And To The Question Of Wether Or Not It Was Brought About By Man Or Some Other Explanation, I Don't Know. I Always Wondered If There Exist Other Beings Outside Our Galaxy And FAR BEYOND OUR LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING. It Would Not Even Be Within The Realm Of Our Understanding. But I Wonder If These Beings Might Be Spiritual Or Metaphysical.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Key2life
reply to post by sirnex
 


I Totally Agree With You!
But Like Everything I Think Science Has It Own Limits. A Few Examples Are What Existed Prior To The Big Bang Or In Other Words Where And How The Universe Came About. Another Question Could Be If Our Universe Exists In A Multiverse Or In A Sea Of Universes. I Mean All These Questions Do Have Exact Answers Or As Far As I Know And They All Fall Outside Of Science As Far As I Know. I Think There Will Always Be Mysteries That Man May Never Know.
I Think These Questions Brought About Religion Or What We Call Spirituality. We Can Even Throw In Metaphysics. And To The Question Of Wether Or Not It Was Brought About By Man Or Some Other Explanation, I Don't Know. I Always Wondered If There Exist Other Beings Outside Our Galaxy And FAR BEYOND OUR LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING. It Would Not Even Be Within The Realm Of Our Understanding. But I Wonder If These Beings Might Be Spiritual Or Metaphysical.


The only problem I have with that statement is, what else would there be besides science? If science has it's limits, then what other modes of discovery are there? As far as I know, all we have is science in which to discover the universe around us.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Yes I Totally Agree With You.

My Statements Were Only To Show The Particular Limits On Science. Some Say Science Has No Limits To What It Can Explain. But For Now We Can Say Science Has Its Limits.

I Think A Better Question Is Can There Be Other Ways Of Discovering Things? Take For Instance If The Universe Is Endless Or Exists In A Multiverse Then How Can Science Ever Scrutinize Or Fathom These Things. Is It Hard To Fathom Things Which May Never Be Scrutinized? I Only Said That Certain Questions May Never Be Answered. I Didn't Say There Were Other Ways Of Knowing Things Outside Of Science. Or Far As I Know.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Key2life
reply to post by sirnex
 


Yes I Totally Agree With You.

My Statements Were Only To Show The Particular Limits On Science. Some Say Science Has No Limits To What It Can Explain. But For Now We Can Say Science Has Its Limits.

I Think A Better Question Is Can There Be Other Ways Of Discovering Things? Take For Instance If The Universe Is Endless Or Exists In A Multiverse Then How Can Science Ever Scrutinize Or Fathom These Things. Is It Hard To Fathom Things Which May Never Be Scrutinized? I Only Said That Certain Questions May Never Be Answered. I Didn't Say There Were Other Ways Of Knowing Things Outside Of Science. Or Far As I Know.


That sounds as if your trying to self impose a limit on science. Sure, science might not be able to answer the origins of the universe question, but equally at the same time, it just might be able to. We're still at an infant stage of discovery and knowledge so we can't make any reasonable estimate to the extant of what discoveries can or might be made. Right now it's easy to say there is a limit, but only due to a temporary limit on our technological capacity to discover.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Really...
I do think there is a limit to science. (If) the universe was infinite then how can science ever get to the very end to scrutinize it? Or will science ever be able to measure a quantum particle with absolute certainty. Meaning measuring its momentum and position with absolute certainty. Or will science ever be able to measure or see the quantum foam directly? I think all of these are in principle not possible. Unless there is something I don't know?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Key2life
reply to post by sirnex
 


Really...
I do think there is a limit to science. (If) the universe was infinite then how can science ever get to the very end to scrutinize it? Or will science ever be able to measure a quantum particle with absolute certainty. Meaning measuring its momentum and position with absolute certainty. Or will science ever be able to measure or see the quantum foam directly? I think all of these are in principle not possible. Unless there is something I don't know?


Exactly my point *bold text*. There are many things we don't know and can't know at our current technological capacity, but this is not to say that these things can never become known eventually. Comparing future knowledge to today's ability to discover is no different than trying to equate a mission to mars in the stone age.






top topics



 
7
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join