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.

 

*VIDEO* Unlocking-Misteries-of-Life

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Ok folks , be perpaired to get all worked up


Here is an interesting video that I found on the topic of " unlocking-misteries-of-life " .

Unlocking the Mystery of Life(UMOL) — a 58-minute science program exploring what DNA reveals about the origin of life




Google Video Link




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
Ok folks , be perpaired to get all worked up


Here is an interesting video that I found on the topic of " unlocking-misteries-of-life " .

Unlocking the Mystery of Life(UMOL) — a 58-minute science program exploring what DNA reveals about the origin of life




Google Video Link






This video Supports evolution instead Intelligent Design and Intervention Theory.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I wasn't going to watch it once I saw Behe, but I decided to try and sit through it. I could only make it in twenty five minutes before giving up on it. Nothing new appears to have been proposed about intelligent design, which this is what the film is. ID is not science, it's a gap argument and nothing more. I watched twenty five minutes and nothing new was brought forth, what a waste of time.



This video Supports evolution instead Intelligent Design and Intervention Theory.


Have you actually watched the video?

[edit on 8-1-2010 by sirnex]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
i watched about 37mins and stopped not because i wasn't intrested just couldn't be bothered to watch to the end maybe i'll finnish it another time.

just one thing to say when comes to origins i think you have to seperate man from the animals here, simply because if you took man off the planet the earth would be a perfect recycling organism. not that i think we are killing the planet but we're definatly a stick in the workings.

ok two things to say, just that i liked the guy near the start who said he didn't understand why we don't just talk about this subject coz its so interesting. its annoying when people just accept evolution with out know anything about it. i remember my science teacher at school telling us she beleived in god and we all questioned her as to how a science teacher could beleive in god but teach evolution. she had no answers she was an idiot. but now i think what made us pupils think that it was either god or evolution when did that get in our heads.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Interesting vids. I am sure that there is more than these out there too!



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 
This is what I'm talking about!!! Hats off to all those who participated, especially "Dean Kenyon", for his absolute honesty, brovo!!!!

OP, thank you for sharing. The honesty in this documentary was refreshing. So simple even a grade schooler could understand it, and I believe that was the way it was intended from the beginning.

To the detractors, don't even bother!




posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I wasn't going to watch it once I saw Behe, but I decided to try and sit through it. I could only make it in twenty five minutes before giving up on it. Nothing new appears to have been proposed about intelligent design, which this is what the film is. ID is not science, it's a gap argument and nothing more. I watched twenty five minutes and nothing new was brought forth, what a waste of time.



This video Supports evolution instead Intelligent Design and Intervention Theory.


Have you actually watched the video?

[edit on 8-1-2010 by sirnex]

Yes!



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon
This video Supports evolution instead Intelligent Design and Intervention Theory.


Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution, evolution meaning change over time. That you didn't know that is a bit alarming.

The "I.D. is anti-evolution" myth was concocted in order to provoke the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" tag line, which itself was created in order to discredit I.D. without actually addressing it in any sort of detail.

It seems your knowledge of I.D. comes from I.D.-denialists, which is like learning about gravity from gravity-denialists -- just plain silly! If you want to know the truth about I.D., I'd recommend the blog Uncommon Descent.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Mista Kool]



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Mista Kool
 


I love the new terminology, I.D.-Denialists. Just superfreskingfantastic!


One can't deny something that which doesn't exist to deny. Nor can one claim something to exist by pointing at a gap of knowledge. The truth about ID is that it's a gap argument. They posit no evidence nor provide any experiments of their own in which to prove their assertions. They just attack every little gap of human understanding and exclaim PROOF OF ID!



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
The truth about ID is that it's a gap argument. They posit no evidence nor provide any experiments of their own in which to prove their assertions. They just attack every little gap of human understanding and exclaim PROOF OF ID!



The bizarre claim of I.D.-denialists that design isn't detectable is refuted by dozens of fields including archaeology, and hypothetically, S.E.T.I.

Furthermore, the I.D.E.A. Center swats this lie (for Darwin?) out of the ballpark...

FAQ: Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?


The Short Answer: Not at all. Intelligent design works off positive predictions about where experience tells us that intelligent design is the cause at work. Furthermore, the "gap" in Darwinian evolution is not a gap in knowledge, but a fundamental theoretical gap that represents an aspect of biology which Darwin's theory is simply incapable of bridging.




The Long Answer:

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." Meyer also emphasizes many of the positive predictions of intelligent design: "Experience teaches that information-rich systems … invariable result from intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones. Yet origin-of-life biology has artificially limited its explanatory search to the naturalistic nodes of causation … chance and necessity. Finding the best explanation, however, requires invoking causes that have the power to produce the effect in question. When it comes to information, we know of only one such cause. For this reason, the biology of the information age now requires a new science of design.
(Stephen C. Meyer, Mere Creation, pg. 140).

"Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."
(Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs)

"Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational configurations of matter."
(Meyer S. C. et. al., "The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang," in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by J. A. Campbell and S. C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003) Thus intelligent design theory is not attempting to insert itself into some "gap" but rather it deserves a chance to be heard as a sufficient cause for the origin of complex and specified biological information. We can make positive predictions about how intelligent design theory works based upon our observations of how intelligent agents work:

Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations): (1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.

(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.

(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).

(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).


There's more refuting at the link...

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Mista Kool]



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Mista Kool
 



High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.


Irreducible Complexity is a joke that has been refuted for years, and the bacterial flagellum example was disproven in the 90's.

Intelligent Design has not been shown to be detectable, because all of the examples are either proven otherwise, or non-scientific to begin with. Even if you could detect something like Intelligent Design, how do you measure it? You would be unable to create a Theory of Intelligent Design, because you can't tell us why it happen, how it works, or predict when it will happens. Intelligent Design is inherently unscientific.



[edit on 2-3-2010 by PieKeeper]



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Accidental Post. Please Delete.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by PieKeeper]




top topics



 
2

log in

join