Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent Designer? Not yet.

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
just have found a link to some amazing pictures of frozen water, the substance of all life

looks like designed to me, by whom? forces of nature
and there is no coded information needed for
this whole designer claim is wrong to me.

Snowflackes by Marco





posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
Exactly. That's the biggest issue people have here.. They are so hateful towards religion that they fail to see that the 'designer' doesn't even have to be a religious God. One could also simply conclude that nature itself is intelligent. Or it could lead to a perspective of the biocentric universe, and there are more possibilities. People's grudges towards religion blind them from the possibilities.


Or people could just admit they don't know the answer and that further study needs to be done before making a conclusion one way or another?
That is exactly the point. However, modern science likes to pretend that they already know the answers to everything, and when someone has questions, they are put in a religious box for no apparent reason and ignore the questions completely.


Originally posted by Barcs
If you are looking for god or universal intelligence everywhere, you are going to find it. Everyone's got personal beliefs, they just don't always include an intelligent designer. Don't judge everything by its appearance.
It's not really about beliefs. It's about logic. Things are really simple. We take that we have intelligence as a given, and obviously we are part of nature. Either nature creates and therefore is and even transcends intelligence, or we transcend nature since we have intelligence and nature doesn't. There isn't room for anything else. But of course, ignoring consciousness and intelligence is the easiest way to explain things (away)...

And I'm not the only one that thinks that way. Not that that's a sound argument on itself, but, read this, and make up your own mind.
An Algorithmic Challenge to Atheism
edit on 12-12-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Today I saw a puddle in the street, that fit the hole it was in perfectly!

If that's not proof of intelligent design, I don't know what is.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
"Snowflakes. Their structures are a perfect example of information forming without any designer whatsoever."

But there has to be a design that allows for their formation. If water didn't have the properties it has, water couldn't freeze, and there'd be no snowflakes.


There's obviously intelligent design in the universe....but that doesn't mean evolution is wrong nor does it mean Christianity is correct..



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
modern science listens to all comers, it attempts to asnwer
questions when it is able to do so, what it does not do is
look at things that are still unexplained and say oh ok
god must have done that lets stop looking now.

intelligent design is not a science because it cannot provide
testable hypothesis that could qualify it to be peer reviewed
therefore accepted as a theory. that's all i have to say about
that.

If real evidence existed science would listen, and by the
way scientist have looked into many many many religious
claims and still we have yet to find a shred of evidence that
any of the claims have been substantiated.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Didn't humans invent the terms 'intelligent' and 'designer' and thus the term, phrase and idea 'intelligent designer'? I think its as easy as looking outside and saying "that's what's going on," and I'd probably be right.

How does man look at the universe and see himself? This is what I don't get. Our ideas of intelligence are insufficient and our ideas of design are insufficient because they apply only to us and nothing else.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


must add, a single human lives like 60-80 years? how much can he learn and discover in this time, especially in this greed based age where even science has become some kind of "religion" where not all discovers "are welcome" ?

lets hope some day our DNA will add inheritable knowledge into it's code
edit on 12-12-2012 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
This topic and thread has been chosen to be discussed by the ATS LIVE crew this Saturday between 6-9pm pst as part of this weeks Turbo Topics segment.

 

LOW BANDWIDTH STREAM NOW AVAILABLE - We now run a 32kbps stream for those of you with slower connections. You can connect to the low bandwidth stream by clicking here.

www.shoutcast.com...

We are still running at 256kbps through the ATS Player, and there are also options to listen via other players on our relay site at www.illustrial.net...
 


For more information and past shows, be sure to check out the ATSLive Show Threads Here.

Hope you'll listen in!
Johnny



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
That is exactly the point. However, modern science likes to pretend that they already know the answers to everything, and when someone has questions, they are put in a religious box for no apparent reason and ignore the questions completely.

By modern science, do you mean scientists of today? I've never seen one pretend to know all the answers. Their purpose to TRY to find the answers to "everything". Science has helped us learn a huge amount of information that effects our daily lives in a positive way.

The issue is that many creationists and ID advocates attack science with false information, or claim their personal opinion of intelligent design is fact. That is when you see science supporters strike back. The questions are not ignored, they are often based on personal opinion, so it cannot hold scientific merit, which sets us this point perfectly:

Originally posted by vasaga
It's not really about beliefs. It's about logic. Things are really simple. We take that we have intelligence as a given, and obviously we are part of nature. Either nature creates and therefore is and even transcends intelligence, or we transcend nature since we have intelligence and nature doesn't. There isn't room for anything else. But of course, ignoring consciousness and intelligence is the easiest way to explain things (away)...

Where is the logic? That has nothing to do with any type of scientific fact whatsoever. You are philosophizing, which proves my point. It is a personal belief. It is your interpretation. It's cool, it's just not scientific, or logical. The problem is most ID advocates will not admit that there is but one real FACT in this situation. The fact that we don't yet know the answer and ID is a belief. The questions about transcending nature cannot be answered without absolute knowledge of the universe.


And I'm not the only one that thinks that way. Not that that's a sound argument on itself, but, read this, and make up your own mind.
An Algorithmic Challenge to Atheism


It only took a few lines before the fallacies came pouring in. I have no problem whatsoever with your beliefs, they are yours and you are welcome to them. I just don't see why it's so hard to see that it is a faith based belief.
edit on 12-12-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
But there has to be a design that allows for their formation. If water didn't have the properties it has, water couldn't freeze, and there'd be no snowflakes.

There's obviously intelligent design in the universe....but that doesn't mean evolution is wrong nor does it mean Christianity is correct..


Water does indeed have those properties. That doesn't mean somebody created them just because it exists as it does. You could use that argument for anything in the universe. In the universe, when I see intelligent design it is because a human created it. The arguments for the complexity of DNA are merely speculation based on what science has not yet discovered. See the issue? Everybody's trying to find out the answer to the big question, but thus far nobody knows for sure.
edit on 12-12-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
By modern science, do you mean scientists of today? I've never seen one pretend to know all the answers.
Here's an example I just posted today.
Click


Originally posted by Barcs
Their purpose to TRY to find the answers to "everything". Science has helped us learn a huge amount of information that effects our daily lives in a positive way.
The achievements of science can not be called into question. However, trying to find the answer to 'everything' is pretty impossible when things like awareness and information are assumed to be materialistic rather than actually investigated.


Originally posted by Barcs
The issue is that many creationists and ID advocates attack science with false information, or claim their personal opinion of intelligent design is fact. That is when you see science supporters strike back. The questions are not ignored, they are often based on personal opinion, so it cannot hold scientific merit, which sets us this point perfectly:

Originally posted by vasaga
It's not really about beliefs. It's about logic. Things are really simple. We take that we have intelligence as a given, and obviously we are part of nature. Either nature creates and therefore is and even transcends intelligence, or we transcend nature since we have intelligence and nature doesn't. There isn't room for anything else. But of course, ignoring consciousness and intelligence is the easiest way to explain things (away)...

Where is the logic? That has nothing to do with any type of scientific fact whatsoever. You are philosophizing, which proves my point.
The fact that you think science is completely independent from philosophy is really disappointing. Science uses philosophy constantly. Philosophy gave birth to science, and every single time you need to interpret data, there is no other way than philosophy. And if you really think there is any other option than the ones I proposed above, I'll be glad to hear them.


Originally posted by Barcs
It is a personal belief. It is your interpretation. It's cool, it's just not scientific, or logical.
Kind of funny, how you say I'm philosophizing, and not being logical, while the thing that's at the center of philosophy is logic. And the fact that there can be such a thing as philosophy of science, means that philosophy transcends science. For the record, let me quote from Wikipedia what philosophy is:


Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]



Originally posted by Barcs
The problem is most ID advocates will not admit that there is but one real FACT in this situation. The fact that we don't yet know the answer and ID is a belief. The questions about transcending nature cannot be answered without absolute knowledge of the universe.
You're acting as if knowledge and belief are two completely different things. Aside from that, things like materialism are also beliefs.



Originally posted by Barcs
It only took a few lines before the fallacies came pouring in.
Which would that be exactly?


Originally posted by Barcs
I have no problem whatsoever with your beliefs, they are yours and you are welcome to them. I just don't see why it's so hard to see that it is a faith based belief.
The same reason it's hard for you to see that materialism is a belief.
edit on 12-12-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by Barcs
By modern science, do you mean scientists of today? I've never seen one pretend to know all the answers.
Here's an example I just posted today.
Click

Okay, you post a link to an article about free will and the brain. Where is the scientist pretending to know everything?



The achievements of science can not be called into question. However, trying to find the answer to 'everything' is pretty impossible when things like awareness and information are assumed to be materialistic rather than actually investigated.

Awareness and information are assumed to be materialistic? They aren't investigated? EVERYTHING is investigated in science. None of this offers factual information regarding intelligent design. If evidence for something does not exist in science, they do not factor it into the equations and experiments. It's that simple. Let's assume that consciousness is powered by the stars. Why isn't that investigated or used in experiments? It is not testable, therefor is not scientific.


The fact that you think science is completely independent from philosophy is really disappointing. Science uses philosophy constantly. Philosophy gave birth to science, and every single time you need to interpret data, there is no other way than philosophy. And if you really think there is any other option than the ones I proposed above, I'll be glad to hear them.

Kind of funny, how you say I'm philosophizing, and not being logical, while the thing that's at the center of philosophy is logic. And the fact that there can be such a thing as philosophy of science, means that philosophy transcends science. For the record, let me quote from Wikipedia what philosophy is:

Philosophy is not science and not any indicator whatsoever of truth. That's the bottom line. Objective evidence matters. If rational thought is required by philosophy, then I apologize, you were not philosophizing, you were guessing and expressing your faith.


Originally posted by Barcs
You're acting as if knowledge and belief are two completely different things. Aside from that, things like materialism are also beliefs.

They ARE 2 different things. Equating them is silly. Knowledge is based on what we know to be true based on experimentation. Belief is what you personally think about your own existence based on emotional connection or deep rooted morality. Belief in a higher intelligence? Yes, it's a belief unless there are facts to back it up.


Originally posted by Barcs


It only took a few lines before the fallacies came pouring in.
Which would that be exactly?


It isn't an either or scenario between: "Intelligence did it" and "random processes did it". That is a very one dimensional way of thinking. Perhaps the answer is too complex for us to understand. Perhaps its so simple we don't see it staring us in the face. Occam's Razor is not absolute and is not used by scientists as proof, at least not any that hold merit and have published works. It's the way we simplify things that we do not fully understand. Again, you are primarily referring to philosophy in your arguments, which is not an indicator of truth. If you are looking for the answer, it may be a good place to start, however. Philosophy in science is only used in the very early stages of a hypothesis. Testing and experimentation is required, however. Philosophy, on its own does not hold merit.


Originally posted by Barcs


I have no problem whatsoever with your beliefs, they are yours and you are welcome to them. I just don't see why it's so hard to see that it is a faith based belief.
The same reason it's hard for you to see that materialism is a belief.


And you seem to think that my worldview is strictly materialism, but it's not. I just think jumping to unjustified conclusions that can't be backed up by fact or data, but still calling them facts, is wrong. There are not facts in intelligent design. There is belief.

You BELIEVE DNA is too complex to arise naturally.
You BELIEVE that the cell is nanotechnology
You BELIEVE that there must be a higher power because we can't explain everything right now
You BELIEVE the universe appears to be ordered and arranged intelligently

You can't prove anything close to that.
edit on 12-12-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 






The problem is most ID advocates will not admit that there is but one real FACT in this situation. The fact that we don't yet know the answer and ID is a belief.



The fact is that in our world,

new ideas, new inventions, and new expressions of art, come from an

Intelligent mind.





Hey check this out, a new invention!





Cool device,

I may not immediately understand how it was developed or made, but I can use it. I can also take it apart and begin to understand the design.

"Maybe it just happened."



Or

This invention came from the creative geniuses at Apple.



"Oh yeah right, Steves Jobs did it!"






I may not understand how something was made.

I do recognize its usefulness

and appreciate the creative genius behind the design.

edit on 12-12-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
I may not understand how something was made.

I do recognize its usefulness

and appreciate the creative genius behind the design.


And that, sir, is your opinion, and I respect it. It's not a factual conclusion however. Stars and planets aren't ipads. Like I said earlier, all intelligence that I see in the world comes from humans. Could you please direct me to the screws and components to the moon? I'd like to take it apart and inspect the design, maybe throw in some upgrades.


There is a logical flaw in comparing naturally occurring phenomena to man made technology. It's pure assumption and nothing more.
edit on 12-12-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Ironic how a "science of the gaps" argument is being employed here, when id is accused of using a "god of the gaps" constantly by the very same people. Both are fallacies.

The truth is many critics of id only get thier information from other critics of id and have no real knowlede of the arguments only twisted versions of them and catch phrases that simply avoid the issues.

Once again snowflakes are reducable to known physical forces. Even though those forces seem finely tuned they are still material causes. DNA translation is different, semiosis is not reducable to physical law. language is not reducable to physical law. Physical laws can be defined as constraints, semiosis however is not a constraint but a form of controls, there are no physical laws defining it although it does not break any physical laws.

Symbols, the code is in control not any material forces, this is not difficult to understand.

This is based on what is known, not any appeal to the unknown.

We know the only "known" mechanism for producing a semiotic relationship or code is through intelligence. Anything else is an appeal to the unknown. Since it is not governed by physical law material forces simply cannot account for it.

This provides a basis for falsification, meaning it is a valid hypothesis. Note I did say hypothesis and not truth.
To note, in fact it is the only valid hypothesis, because it's the only "known" mechanism for semiosis, everything else is simply an appeal to the unknown.

The hypothesis also includes the null hypothesis that purely unguided material forces are incapable of creating a semiotic mechanism. This could be falsified by some yet unknown physical laws. Although logically I find it impossible. There is not even a hint of how this could happen. One arrangement of dead matter must talk to another separate arrangement not through physics but protocols and signs. It would be like discovering rocks are having a conversation together.

Science is great, what is more prevalent in these issues is scientism. Learn the difference.

IMO materialism was destroyed a hundred years ago.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 




Could you please direct me to the screws and components to the moon? I'd like to take it apart and inspect the design, maybe throw in some upgrades.


No,

Because humans didn't invent the moon or assemble it.









There is a logical flaw in comparing naturally occurring phenomena to man made technology. It's pure assumption and nothing more.


What is natural?

If man is natural and he uses natural elements, then isn't his technology natural as well?





Many of us were born into a world of technology,

so it seems natural to us.


Just because new technology already existed when we were born, and we take it for granted, Doesn't negate how incredible it is,

Or, minimize the intelligence behind it.
edit on 12-12-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1

I may not understand how something was made.

and appreciate the creative genius behind the design.



This is the awe that I mentioned in a previous post. The awe that leads us down the wrong path knowledge-wise. Way back when man first attempted to understand the world around them they were in awe of erupting volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes... Surely there must be a god behind these forces, they thought.

Today we are delving deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the universe, with even more reasons to be blown away by it all. However, if we follow the evidence of how, time after time after time, we came to understand that what we considered 'God's hand in the works' turned out to be perfectly natural occurrences. Why stray from this chain of evidence now when, historically, it suggests that a supernatural being will be removed from all aspects of the universe. Again, let me point out that the historical evidence suggests this. It doesn't mean it's true. Not yet anyway.
edit on 12/12/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I don't know why we need a supernatural being in order to stand in amazement beneath the night sky.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I don't know why we need a supernatural being in order to stand in amazement beneath the night sky.


The same reason we need a painter in order to stand in amazement beneath the Sistine Chapel.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Okay, you post a link to an article about free will and the brain. Where is the scientist pretending to know everything?
It's right there in your face. Your failure to understand the point is a sign of your blindness.


Originally posted by Barcs
Awareness and information are assumed to be materialistic?
Aren't they? Awareness is presumed to be generated by the brain, and information is presumed to be possible to arise from inanimate matter, or purely physical properties, even though there is no evidence for it.


Originally posted by Barcs
They aren't investigated?
We have information science, but it's completely neglected when it comes to things like biology, where they constantly violate the rules of information science. So no, it's not investigated and implemented as it should be.


Originally posted by Barcs
EVERYTHING is investigated in science.
You're saying there are no taboos or limits in science?


Originally posted by Barcs
None of this offers factual information regarding intelligent design.
You think I'm proposing intelligent design in the sense that some man with a beard we call God made the universe. That is not the case. Your whole reply is a full-blown strawman


Originally posted by Barcs
If evidence for something does not exist in science, they do not factor it into the equations and experiments.
Ok. Tell me where the evidence is that you yourself are aware. Should I conclude you don't exist? Jokes aside, for there to be evidence, one has to look for it first, instead of dismissing things beforehand. Don't tell me that doesn't happen in science, because it does.


Originally posted by BarcsIt's that simple. Let's assume that consciousness is powered by the stars. Why isn't that investigated or used in experiments? It is not testable, therefor is not scientific.
That only shows the scientific limit.


Originally posted by Barcs
Philosophy is not science and not any indicator whatsoever of truth.
What part of 'philosophy is used in science' don't you understand? Every interpretation of any evidence is philosophy. Philosophy invented the scientific method in the first place. And detecting fallacies is possible because of philosophy. Tough luck that you don't like philosophy, but every time you accuse someone of a fallacy, you are using it.


Originally posted by Barcs
That's the bottom line. Objective evidence matters.
Philosophy is not independent of empiricism. Science is basically empirical philosophy, and since it's a branch of it, it's by default more limited.


Originally posted by Barcs
If rational thought is required by philosophy, then I apologize, you were not philosophizing, you were guessing and expressing your faith.
What a pathetic low blow of an argument. I'm expressing problems with your views, not expressing my faith. But what else can be expected? You are known for doing this. Assigning all the baggage, being unable to have a proper conversation. Too busy pretending you already know what others think.


Originally posted by Barcs
They ARE 2 different things.
No. Knowledge is a belief that conforms to so-called reality.


Originally posted by Barcs
Equating them is silly. Knowledge is based on what we know to be true based on experimentation.
Knowledge is what we know. You don't say. Great insight right there. I love how you phrased it. Let me rephrase it for you. Knowledge is belief that's based on what we have verified to be true through experimentation. Better, right?


Originally posted by Barcs
Belief is what you personally think about your own existence based on emotional connection or deep rooted morality. Belief in a higher intelligence? Yes, it's a belief unless there are facts to back it up.
That's how you define it, so you can degrade others in your arguments. A belief is something that someone accepts as true or real, and it can fall within knowledge or not.


Originally posted by Barcs
It isn't an either or scenario between: "Intelligence did it" and "random processes did it".
What else could it be?


Originally posted by Barcs
That is a very one dimensional way of thinking. Perhaps the answer is too complex for us to understand.
Great science of the gaps argument.. While you're known to accuse people of the God of the gaps argument. Hypocrite much.


Originally posted by Barcs
Perhaps its so simple we don't see it staring us in the face.
Yeah, like what I proposed above that you're dancing around to avoid like the plague.

To be continued on next page....
edit on 12-12-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join