Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christians Did Not Invent Intelligent Design Theory

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
There's actually a very good book on the evolution of the brain and how our genes are able to produce an organ that is capable of such complex thought and functions. It is titled The Birth of the Mind: How a Tiny Number of Genes Creates The Complexities of Human Thought by Gary Marcus.




posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Genes create the brain, not the thoughts. If that were the case, chimpanzees, having 97% our dna might also write beautiful music and ponder the meaning of it all, no?
I think my ego demands there must be more to me. Am I nothing but meat that perish apon death?

I beleive the mind/persona/self/awareness is a separate entity from the brain.
A car has a motor, (analogy to the brain), you provide fuel (analogy to food) and it functions, BUT, not without a driver!
Yes it can be started and sit idle, but its like a person in a vegetive state, it cant go anywhere, cant choose direction.
If we are just meat with electrical activity, nothing more , why are we different? why do I like certain things, not others?
The brain doesn't even have sensation, it relies on nerve impulses sent to it, its like a computer processer, brilliant, but useless without input, a monitor, keyboard, phiperals and software.
How does meat have personality?

[edit on 28-2-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
3% difference is a huge difference when we're talking about DNA. The development of an organism is dependent on proteins being produced at a specific time. This production is controlled by a person's DNA. If the wrong protein is produced at the wrong time it can have disastrous effects on an organism. A human has 23,000 protein-coding genes. If you alter even one of these genes it can produce a deadly disease like Huntington's. Now imagine the effects if you changed 690 of these genes. You can expect to have a much different organism that bears very little, if any, resemblance to the original.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
The phrase "intelligent design" is yet another man made phrase that means nothing - it was created as a way to further denounce and dismiss "God" aka Jesus Christ as our divine Creator.

When will society stop buying into everything that is attempted to be shoveled down their mouths. Sigh.

Satan is having a hay day with this new generation.




posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
If a Christian were to actually invent anything, it would be in direct violation of their religious beliefs. It is the invisible law of that faith that thinking, questioning, creating, modernizing, or changing anything is evil. So I would doubt that anything that we have in existence that benefits or helps mankind in any way shape or form would be the work of a "true" christian.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pplrnuts
 



True Christians don't have "religious" beliefs. They follow God's law
as instructed in the Bible.

"Religion" is what you'll find in the secular society.

Not sure what you've been reading...... but it
sounds scary.





posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Intelligent design isn't an argument about origins (though it tries, with the aforementioned "all-powerful, all-creating, all-controlling entity that I'm not SAYING is the christian god, wink wink nudge nudge") but rather an attempt to explain the diversity of species, as a counter-argument to evolution.


Incorrect.

Intelligent Design says that life was designed -- thus it's clearly a statement regarding the origins of life. Speciation was simply a resulting and likely planned effect of the original design.

I.D.-denialists may strategically skirt around the issue of life's origins or insert their chance-of-the-gaps, but I.D. embraces it based entirely on inductive reasoning and parsimony leading to the logical inference of design -- all science, all of the time.

I.D.'s only beef with evolution is "blind watchmaker" evolution, the kind of evolution which has become a religion of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins. We find it to be both archaic and a plea to ignorance. What I mean by that is, we feel it strongly under-appreciates the current discoveries in biology. The more we learn the more it's clear that life operates under a set of guidelines no different than our own universe. While I.D.ists want to discover these laws and fully understand how the designer did it, including how life evolves, Darwinists would rather not. They'd rather claim it's all random, thus unpredictable, throw out some vague references to natural selection, and call it a day.

I.D. is the more intellectually stimulating theory, and it also better confers with the evidence, meaning if it were to became the mainstream paradigm, it would almost certainly be more fruitful than the b.s. we currently have.

As for the designer being the Christian God, those who are both Christian and followers of I.D. believe that to be the case (duh). Unfortunately it's something which is currently lacking in concrete evidence, thus it must remain an open question.

A Christian is free to believe that the designer is their God, however they're not free to insist that to be the case.

Intelligent Design's not a massive Christian conspiracy but the modern-day resurgence of a scientific mindset that goes back millenia and clearly precedes Christianity, as the O.P. shows.

It's perfectly safe to now remove your tin-foil hat.


Originally posted by TheWalkingFoxNo, because again, the aliens and life would have come from something, and ID would be left trying to explain the "creators" creator. Same as it currently does. ID is a paradoxical loop with no resolution.

Life was either designed or it was not. The origins of any purported designer(s) would be a secondary question with zero bearing on the original query.

What you're suggesting actually places scientific progress in a straight-jacket. You're saying that because all of the pieces haven't yet been found, that science can't even begin to put together the puzzle. That's not how science works, friend. We put together what pieces we do have and work from there, in a step-by-step fashion.

Step one is to accept the reality that life was designed (which upsets you, I know).

Step two is to figure out how life was designed, and how it has progressed towards an obvious goal (humanity) over the past 3.7 billion years.

Step three is to discover just who did the designing and, if we dare, ask why?

I.D.ists have taken step one and are now on step two. Unfortunately step two requires many resources, resources I.D.ists are currently lacking. This is because mainstream science won't even take that first step due to personal agendas and worldview dogmatism, and as a result I.D. must work from an extreme disadvantage, including a lack of government funding. Since the evidence supports I.D., that means all of science is suffering, too.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by Mista Kool]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I think the readers here will find the following video to be of interest. It is a documentary on the Dover school district trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover. Watch the whole video or if you are busy you can jump ahead to 86:40 to learn exactly how the modern phrase "Intelligent Design" - ehem - evolved. The video goes a long way towards exposing just how deeply dishonest and deceptive creationists are.

Judgment Day -- Intelligent Design on Trial

See also The Wedge Document.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Mista Kool
 


No, ID is intrinsically unscientific, and will always be. It is not based on any scientific hypothesis, and is not testable, and certainly can not be used to predict anything. It is not science. It never has been, and it is impossible for it to ever be. It's a joke.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The "Judgment Day" propaganda was just slaughtered by Casey Luskin. You can read that in detail here, but here's a sneak preview:


More than 50 years ago two playwrights penned a fictionalized account of the 1920s Scopes Trial called "Inherit the Wind" that is now universally regarded by historians as inaccurate propaganda. Last night PBS aired its "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design" documentary, which similarly promotes propaganda about the 2005 Kitzmiller trial and intelligent design (ID). Most of the misinformation in "Judgment Day" was corrected by ID proponents long ago. To help readers sift the fact from the fiction, here are links to articles rebutting some of PBS's most blatant misrepresentations:

1. PBS falsely claims that Discovery Institute sent the Dover Area School Board the "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" documentary and supported Dover's ID policy.

2. PBS falsely claims that Scott Minnich did not testify about his own scientific research on the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.

3. PBS wrongly claims that Tiktaalik is "one of the most vivid transitional forms ever discovered" and is "the latest evidence to refute intelligent design."

4. PBS quotes an NCSE staff member wrongly claiming there is no "complete explanation" of why some pro-ID expert witnesses did not testify.

5. PBS wrongly claims that the Type III Secretory System (T3SS) refutes the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum.

6. PBS wrongly claims that human chromosomal fusion evidence "confirm[s] ... the common ancestry of humans and apes."

7. PBS wrongly asserts that intelligent design is creationism because of the contents of early drafts of the Of Pandas and People textbook.

8. PBS quotes Barbara Forrest wrongly insinuating that Discovery Institute seeks to impose theocracy, and leaves off mention of Forrest's own anti-religious motives.

9. PBS falsely claims that intelligent design is a negative argument against evolution that appeals to the supernatural.

10. PBS makes the false insinuation that intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology.


Each refutation goes into great detail at the link. It's a must-read if you're interested in seeing just how dishonest and deceptive the Liars for Darwin are and how desperate they are to keep their Victorian era mysticism alive in the face of overwhelming evidence which says its a sham.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Mista Kool
 


That's all you have? Evolution is wrong because a play on PBS got some facts wrong? Wow. Talk about scraping the barrel! Hahahaha!



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Mista Kool
 


No, ID is intrinsically unscientific, and will always be. It is not based on any scientific hypothesis, and is not testable, and certainly can not be used to predict anything. It is not science. It never has been, and it is impossible for it to ever be. It's a joke.


I.D. is based on the same hypothesis that Darwinian evolution is based on -- is there design in life?

I.D. says yes, the random variation-spurred, goalless evolution supported by atheists says no. A test for one is invariably a test for the other. If one isn't provable, the other isn't falsifiable, and vice versa.

Your response reeks more of emotion than it does of logic.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mista Kool
 


Keep telling yourself what you want. ID is not science. It is pseudoscience. It is not born from the same hypothesis - I don't think you know what that word means. A hypothesis is a statement, not a question. ID starts with the notion that there is a creator/designer, and then shoe-horns "evidence" in to that notion. That is the complete antithesis of science.

It is intellectually dishonest to say ID is science in any way, shape, or form. My response contains no emotion at all - just a bare statement of the facts, which heavily disagree with your position, and that of ID.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Great OP, thank you!

After reading through it has become the expected unfortunately.

Creationism vs. Evolution or in this case ID vs. Evolution

I thought the premise or point of this thread was to suggest that Christians did not create the idea of ID? As most evolutionists contend it is a mask to propogate the christian god.

And to that suggestion, I agree whole heartedly that ID is a stand alone "theory" which can be incorporated into religion but does not need religion or have to rely on it.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PowerSlave
 


Sure. It's exactly along the same lines as the whole Zombie-Jesus "theory" Christianity is based on. Unscientific, without a hope of ever becoming scientific.

Which means it should stay out of the science classroom.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


When did ATS become the science classroom?

And your point has 0 to do with the OP. The theory of evolution has 0 to do with the OP.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by PowerSlave
 


I never said it was a classroom.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join