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.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
because if something can contain much more intelligence then a human,,,,, and something can contain much much more intelligence then a human,,,, eventually we will get to,,, do you think something can contain enough intelligence to create and design a universe?
if you answer yes,,, then this universe/nature could have been intelligently designed,,,, if you answer no..... why?
Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by jiggerj
I call it arrogant and typical Luciferian dogma.
Come on AIM64C, enough bluster. Enough insults, enough monologues and enough pussy footing around with the issue.
We're 10 pages into this thread already, now would be a good time for you to quit trying to give us the run around the houses and post up the abstracts from papers published in credible journals that support the notion of a designer, the existence of a designer or the refutation of the mainstream materialist hypothesis for life's origins in favour of a designer.
"Another example is Günter Blobel, who in a news conference given just after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, said that the main problem one encounters in one's research is 'when your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas.' According to the New York Times, these comments 'drew thunderous applause from the hundreds of sympathetic colleagues and younger scientists in the auditorium.'"
"[W]hen [Stephen] Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected. I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called 'unitarity' would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected."
I eagerly await this academic literature.
The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.
Strictly speaking, probability theory only addresses things that may happen in the future. We can talk about the wild improbability of abiogenesis ad infinitum, as Dawkins does. The probability of the random generation of life from non-life under experimental conditions is so low that it approaches 0. It is a mischaracterization of probability to use this as a science-stopping argument. Abiogenesis occured, therefore an examination of the probability of this occurence is little more than an interesting theoretical exercise.
I was more hoping for some kind of reasoning as to the logic behind saying 'it's nearly impossible for life to be created on it's own, therefore we must have been designed'.
Complex specified information (CSI) was supposed to be a mathematically rigorous attempt to figure out what emerges by chance versus what must emerge by design. CSI like Michael Behe's irreducible complexity relies mostly on evolution being only random. The fact that natural selection can act to make things that appear to be designed is never addressed in Dembski's work. Essentially CSI claims that improbability of a sequence occurring by chance that fits a particular preconceived pattern must mean it was designed.
When, in actual fact, this view requires the infinitely small chance of life being created to have happened, not once, but twice.
Not creationist sites (lol!), not "About.com" (double lol!), just the abstracts from the scientific papers. That's all you have to do to completely demolish my position. See, I'm even trying to help you refute my argument here
If you cannot comply with this simple request and actually substantiate the science you claim supports your argument then at least have the grace to retract your clearly statements.
Originally posted by Moduli
Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
But we can do that in the laboratory, and still we cannot create life.
Except that we can:
Scientists create polio virus from scratch
Scientists create bacteria from man-made DNA.
In this latest study, the team designed a non-infectious gene map for Mycoplasma mycoides bacteria, ordered the map's chemical constituents and assembled those chemicals into a gene chromosome inside yeast cells. Finally, they transplanted the genome into a different species of bacteria, "and booted it up," Venter says, noting "a lot of failed attempts" preceded the success.
The altered bacteria reproduced as blue colonies of mycoides cells (now held in a freezer and awaiting a museum), containing gene "watermark" codes contained only in the synthetic genome.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by john_bmth
docs.google.com...:Vj9P758vfZsJ:evolutioncontroversy.net/texts/bibliography.pdf+gordon+taylor+evolution&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&src id=ADGEESi4E4JaPMlSqxYhJmcn6C6wPyDtaR3L7AM_DhzyWr5OIlpwM3AC93N8oiYI1F4w5soh2faulImET12tG5lHmjDYEO398Wrovw2y1IdCDDnVScloMn0BFgFiQVrRdvPOLAwtS5aJ&sig=AH IEtbT44o3yve8FW8YDWOImmfAHr2DlUA
From the NCSE, an interesting take on polls of scientists: ncse.com...