It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Okay... Now I know how much we all wish science can in principle explain everything.
But how might those statements I proposed be in principle be discovered? Pretend you have no technological limit. Show me how in principle they may be scrutinized.
Now might I use your same argument and say that ID might exist but we are too primitive to understand it. It would be like an ant trying to comprehend string theory or worse to comprehend us! Science hasn't advanced far enough to comprehend ID. Our current knowledge and technology is to primitive to understand ID. See this whole argument is pretty much the same as yours. Well in concept anyway.
Originally posted by brofjw
Stir your finger in a motionless pool of water with rocks in it.
You make ripples.
But move on to something else, and the ripples remain for awhile.
They move outward and form THEIR OWN SHAPES AND DIRECTIONS against the rocks even though you supplied the initial swirl.
Maybe someone is doing this with us.
If you can't conceive in principle of how it can be done then don't say it is possible. It only becomes possible when it is done.
If something is unknown then nothing can be known about it until it becomes known. You can't presume something doesn't exist unless knowledge proves it doesn't.
How do you know that what ever sent evolution in motion wasn't a program designed by ID. Philosophically it is possible since it can't be proven or unproven. It isn't science yet but that may be our own ignorance.
The ID I speak about is much different then what has been proposed. The ID I speak of is like a programmer who set the Universe in motion. It created the basic laws of physics and used the quantum principles to set it all in motion.
what science is being done to prove this theory? it seems to me it is mostly about (failing to) disproe evolution
Intelligent design describes the "who"
What i have seen, however, in a BIG BIG BIG way, is a bunch of angry atheist, "im better than you" butt heads try to say "you're an idiot for believing in God, evolution is the answer"
But they can never answer where the first living organism came from.
So, by your own definition of what can be science and what cannot....not even evolution can be considered science.
Sure, it looks into what happens from a certain point forward, but totally ignores where the 1st cell came from.
Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by sirnex
you say evolution is a fact.
some forms of evolution do happen
but macro evolution where one species totally changes in to another is not a fact. if you say it is that is simply untrue