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.

 

Atheism or Intelligent Design?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
At first there was nothing then it exploded. And then nothing started to form something and then there was dinosaurs.




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 




LOL There is evidence that there is a true creator of all. Some people are just blind to see it. Take for instance the DNA.


Actually DNA is one of the best evidences for evolution because of how adaptable it is.

By the way we humans recently created a synthetic cell and actually encoded the names of the scientists involved into it. If God wanted us to know him could he have not left his named carved in each human cell?

There is no evidence for God, just anecdotal stories and people believing on empty ignorant faith.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by dragnet53
 




LOL There is evidence that there is a true creator of all. Some people are just blind to see it. Take for instance the DNA.


Actually DNA is one of the best evidences for evolution because of how adaptable it is.

By the way we humans recently created a synthetic cell and actually encoded the names of the scientists involved into it. If God wanted us to know him could he have not left his named carved in each human cell?

There is no evidence for God, just anecdotal stories and people believing on empty ignorant faith.


so who created the DNA? Who created the micro organisms that are in our body like the red and white blood cells? What about the micro organisms that are in the waters? You ego is one of the reasons why we can't evolve past materialism.


:bnghd:



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dragnet53

LOL absurd?!

This has been proven also by geneticists as well.

He also agrees with creationists and believe they are right. Oh my god so he mentions his book. BTW so you go to church and the priests does his sermon and then asks don't forgot to donate to us before you leave. I guess that is right huh?




Yes, that is absurd in every way.

Such a hypothesis has not been proven by geneticists.

And yes, everyone with an unproven myth seems to have a book for sale or some other way to grope for money.

Spreading incorrect information that fringe pseudoscience hypotheses have been proven only reflects poorly on you.


LOL

I will give you three sources:

web.mit.edu...

arjournals.annualreviews.org...

www.ancestry.com...

hypothesis has turned fact.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

LOL

I will give you three sources:

web.mit.edu...

arjournals.annualreviews.org...

www.ancestry.com...

hypothesis has turned fact.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by dragnet53]


LOL indeed.

Those sources find some mysteries in mitochondrial DNA and mention nothing about the "Annunaki" creating modern humans. One even features this tidbit:


Rushton's views are on the extreme fringe


Please, stop using these lunatic fringe pseudoscientists to try to validate your creationist beliefs. I don't care what you believe but as I said before, when you try to pass off fringe hypotheses as proof you end up looking foolish. You're certainly not helping your cause and you display a serious lack of critical thinking skills. Best of luck to you.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

so who created the DNA? Who created the micro organisms that are in our body like the red and white blood cells? What about the micro organisms that are in the waters? You ego is one of the reasons why we can't evolve past materialism.


With all due respect it's your "ego", rather, your limited vision that is the problem. Once you're affixed on the concept of a "creator" creating everything you can't see beyond it. Perhaps you should expand your horizons with some education rather than your affixations and perhaps you can get out of the ancient ensnaring trappings in which your elementary reasoning dwells.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
You guys do know that Atheism and Intelligent Design are not in any way a dichotomy. It is like arguing what is right the earth is flat or the earth is pyramid shape it is really a false division.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 




so who created the DNA?


No one. As far as we know it developed on its own through gradual growths in complexity by organic self-replicating proteins (at least that's my understanding, if there's anyone who knows more about abiogenesis than I do please correct me). It doesn't have to have a creator.



You ego is one of the reasons why we can't evolve past materialism.


If by materialism you mean naturalism than we'd better stop ourselves from moving past it. Everything we see has a natural cause and everything we once thought to be supernatural, when studied, has been found to have a natural cause. The supernatural is by definition outside the purview of science and if we can't detect it or find any evidence of it there is no reason to believe it.

If we all "evolved past materialism" we'd stop putting value on anything physical and natural and real and live in delusional fantasy worlds, but I guess a handful of zealous religious folks already do that.

There's no reason to presuppose a Creator because we have no evidence for one.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 




By the way we humans recently created a synthetic cell


So this synthetic cell needed intelligent designers to come into existence?

Think about it.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 




By the way we humans recently created a synthetic cell


So this synthetic cell needed intelligent designers to come into existence?

Think about it.


exactly!

if we can do it , then why not a creator or an advanced race?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 





No one. As far as we know it developed on its own through gradual growths in complexity by organic self-replicating proteins (at least that's my understanding, if there's anyone who knows more about abiogenesis than I do please correct me). It doesn't have to have a creator


So even though the gemome has with'in it a language that carries information. DNA just magically happened? Information can not just develop on it's own.
Can't you see that if you went to see a magic show and there was no
magician. The magic wouldn't happen. Evolution would take an infinite amount of time just to begin. Nonsense.

Information does have to be placed there by someone or something.
The same as a book or a CD or a tape or a hardrive..

In the words of one of your former associates.


“If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over.”
Goodnite from a CREATure of God. Creature it's even embeded in our language. How will you ever get away from the truth?

[edit on 9-6-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 




By the way we humans recently created a synthetic cell


So this synthetic cell needed intelligent designers to come into existence?

Think about it.


Yes i also saw the irony in using the example of a man made cell to make an argument against itelligent design.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 




So this synthetic cell needed intelligent designers to come into existence?


Did you not read my post at all dusty? The cell was left with the names of the scientists who created it embedded within in and the URL to the cell's own website encoded into it. In other words if God existed why wouldn't he leave a similar finger print? We find no such evidence of a creator in our own cells. We've essentially one upped "God".




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





So even though the gemome has with'in it a language that carries information. DNA just magically happened?


Nope. NATURALLY happened. And by the way DNA is not a written language, its a nucleic acid, we've just named the four base components and use the first letter in each name to identify them.

Also, I find it great when a creationist accuses anyone of believing in magic...



Information does have to be placed there by someone or something.


There's that word "information" again. DNA is not an MP3 file it is the protein instructions for building an organism. It could be said to contain 'information' but it is a natural container for it, the ones you named are KNOWN to be artificial. We've studied DNA and we can't find ANY evidence that it's artificial or that it came about via magic or a God. Assuming it did simply because of CDs would be stupid and about as unscientific as is possibly imaginable.



Creature it's even embeded in our language


Creature is embedded in our language because for thousands of years we humans have believed in a vast array of creators. The existence of a word doesn't mean anything. There are lots of words in the English language but I suppose only that one helps you prove your particular magical sky daddy.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I simply cannot believe in intelligent design. Here's why:

I would not have designed a body with so many flaws.

Examples of flaws: decaying teeth, allowing aging, weaknesses to disease, no mental illness....



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 



The cell was left with the names of the scientists who created it embedded within in and the URL to the cell's own website encoded into it. In other words if God existed why wouldn't he leave a similar finger print? We find no such evidence of a creator in our own cells. We've essentially one upped "God".


So God Almighty needs to write something like "Kilroy was here" on His creation?

There is a term used when some punk kid puts his name on someone else's property......

Its called GRAFFITI.



[edit on 10-6-2010 by dusty1]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 




So God Almighty needs to write something like "Kilroy was here" on His creation?


Why would you reduce it to those terms? He doesn't have to use words like that but something elegant or obvious proving he exists would be nice, perhaps the Sermon on the Mount in our DNA (just an example of what would convince an atheist like me).

Studying DNA has led to more and more evidence of evolution and no evidence at all of an intelligent designer. The evidence for the origin of life and bio-diversity doesn't point to a designer, if there is one than he/she/it has done everything in their power to mask their interference under the guise of natural process - why, if there is a God, would he/she/it use such deceptive practices?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Not true, there is plenty of evidence of an intelligent designer..

But people that refuse to even consider an intelligent designer are never going to believe it no matter what anyone does...because they are actually biased against it.. no open mind, no anything, just attack, atack, atack...

Here is an image of every number and letter of the english alphabet that have been discovered on moth and butterfly wings which I think is pretty darn amazing, even if you don't believe it was intelligently put there, it is quite a sight to see nevertheless...
link to source,
epiac1216.wordpress.com...
KILLROY really was here!!!!!lol:





posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
There is absolutely no incompatibility between belief in God and belief in evolution.

I won't spell it out for you because I've been down this road on this board before, but basically put, not all forms of theism are equivalent to the currently popular strains of anti-evolutionary fundamentalism, which themselves are generally new additions (i.e., within the last few centuries) to most religious thought.

It is not a black-and-white choice between athiesm or intelligent design, both of which I personally find highly flawed viewpoints.


[edit on 6/10/10 by silent thunder]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by dusty1
 




So God Almighty needs to write something like "Kilroy was here" on His creation?


Why would you reduce it to those terms? He doesn't have to use words like that but something elegant or obvious proving he exists would be nice, perhaps the Sermon on the Mount in our DNA (just an example of what would convince an atheist like me).

Studying DNA has led to more and more evidence of evolution and no evidence at all of an intelligent designer. The evidence for the origin of life and bio-diversity doesn't point to a designer, if there is one than he/she/it has done everything in their power to mask their interference under the guise of natural process - why, if there is a God, would he/she/it use such deceptive practices?


I understand what you mean and felt exactly the same way at one time, but I never stopped looking for answers.

Think of this theory below as just a theory:

It wasn't meant to be a deception, it was meant as a test:
The test is forcing you to abandon the need for hard evidence just ONCE and believe in it anyways, because that alone would be extremely difficult to do willingly. But if you do it you are submitting to that idea and the act in itself is an act of humility, and that (humility) is the correct answer to the test... humility is like a softening of the mind allowing it to be less stubborn or mired in protocol..
After that, what happens to you depends if you can integrate this into a new paradigm and continue to search for the answers using humility..
People that have made it to this point in their life journey will understand completely what I mean, so unless you have tried , it will be hard to debunk without any true effort..
It is worth the effort, but I can't prove that



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join