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.
I don't care about how life began... nor do I care how human beings developed...
A more worthwhile investment of researchers' energies is the unseen world that exists all around us today.
Anyone who isn't in denial of their senses knows that, regardless of your spiritual/religious beliefs, there is more to life than meets the eye. There are manipulative forces that are continuously at work--wrecking peoples' lives and even turning nations against one another, etc. and so forth.
Too much energy has been (and continues to be) wasted on the childish "God is real!" -- "No, ID is absurd!" argument. Humankind has nothing to gain by this silly debate.
Originally posted by Astyanax
I mean, it makes no difference to you which side wins...
You, and those who think as you do, have utterly failed to provide any definitive evidence of your views.
You don't have the answers; you are a fallible human being with a very narrow capacity of perception who will forever be ignorant--just like all of the rest of us.
We, as a people and as a species, despite gargantuan leaps of knowledge and understanding, are still--in the grand picture of it all--lost.
We are well into the 21st century now, and we cannot even solve such petty problems as world hunger, poverty, or mental illness...
In your arrogance, you claim to possess knowledge on such a scale that you can fully discount the notion of ID.
There is no debate.
There is only ignorance--and we each are immersed in it.
I think it is important to distinguish between the two if this debate is to be coherent. For instance, I would agree with the OP if the title of this thread was "Creationism is dead". In the sense that no serious scientist has or will propose any rational theory supporting it, one would have trouble reasonably countering this claim. Unfortunately for Creationists, they only have their faith and the Bible to support their view.
Here on Above Top Secret, where rigourous scientific standards are not applied, you might expect creationists and IDists to do better; yet despite the plethora of threads on the subject in this forum, the score remains Creationists 0, Evolutionists Every Single Game. Our creationist friends here may beg to differ, but the threads speak for themselves.
Both involve an intervening deity, but ID is more vague about what happened and when.
The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
I find it extremely funny, how abiogenesis is seen as a separate hypothesis, and yet, there is this kind of great urge for evolutionists to bash and fiercely reject intelligent design and creationism, while those address the issue of how life started, and evolution does not according to your own views because it assumes life was already there.. Anyone care to explain & justify this hypocrisy?
Originally posted by rogerstigers
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by sinthia
And thus starts the same argument that has been held on here time and time again in numerous different threads. Here's your evidence.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Great quote from there that I think really nails it:
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
I guess it’s not appropriate to say “Rest In Peace”.
The sad reality is we have half the world believing in fairy tales its been like this forever, we have the knowledge to rise above it now but I still think it will take a few more decades; I don’t believe something like religion can last forever in a evolving society like ours.
I’ve always wondered if that day when we have forgot about religion the human race would become an infinitely better place; there’s no doubt about it in my mind.
RIP IGNORANCE, YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED TO YOUR DEATH BED.
Originally posted by squiz
Actually it seems quite the opposite is true, for example there are now over 50 published peer reviewed papers dealing with the subject. With the most appearing from around 2004.
Some scientific institutions and publications have also emerged to study the issue.
Several books have been released in that same time, signature of a cell made the best sellers list in 2009.
Alive and kicking and developing just fine would be a more accurate description, much to the horror and obvious denial of others.
Actually it seems quite the opposite is true, for example there are now over 50 published peer reviewed papers dealing with the subject. With the most appearing from around 2004.
Instead, Discovery Institute believes that public schools should teach both the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. That's a second reason the critics' narrative is wrong: the actual educational policy goals of the ID movement have seen many successes in recent years. In fact, since the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit, at least four states have passed policies requiring or permitting the teaching of scientific criticisms of evolution.
•In 2006, South Carolina adopted a standard requiring students to "Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
•In 2006, Mississippi passed a law holding that "No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life."
•In 2008, Louisiana required passed a policy requiring that Louisiana schools shall "create and foster an environment...that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
•In 2009, Texas adopted science standards that require students to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking," and also "analyze and evaluate" core evolutionary claims, such as "common ancestry," "natural selection," and "mutation."
If you haven't heard of these victories, there's a good reason why: the media love to cover debates over evolution-education, but only on rare occasions do they accurately report the ID movement's wins.
Oh, it wasn't Intelligent Design that took a hit in that shamefull court case, It was just a little thing called academic freedom.
How Bright is the Future of Intelligent Design?
Post-Dover Education Victories for Intelligent Design
If you haven't heard of these victories, there's a good reason why: the media love to cover debates over evolution-education, but only on rare occasions do they accurately report the ID movement's wins.
It doesn't matter what you think about ID, the real question is why can't the criticism against Darwinism be taught in schools? This was the real issue with the Dover case. The discovery institute never wanted it taught in schools only the criticism against Darwinism.
I mean WTF? most of the bashers haven't a clue what the difficulties darwinian evolution faces because it is not taught in schools and it is hand waved away by the hardcore darwinists. I think I'll get some threads going about these.
The criticism promotes good scientific debate and critical thought. This is what was really defeated in that rediculous court case. One lone judge ruled that ID was religion in disguise. Anyone that has taken the tme to look at the actual position of the ID researchers knows that is complete rubbish.
But back to the original claim that it's dead, pfff.... yeah right. More evidence to the contrary. Darwinists don't seem to have a problem with that though, they just make up a story. In this case it's "Intelligent design is dead!"
Believe it if it makes you feel good.