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.
Originally posted by jiggerj
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.
It's also used to form a conclusion. And philosophy definitely holds merit. If your argument is sound, and your premises are true, then the conclusion is true. In some cases, premises do not need to be verified experimentally. Example? The premise that we exist.
Originally posted by Barcs
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.
Really? Then tell me one thing that you believe does not fall in the materialistic perspective.
Originally posted by Barcs
And you seem to think that my worldview is strictly materialism, but it's not.
So I guess it's not a fact then, that something like language (aka code, descriptive and prescriptive information) has only been observed to arise from intelligence. And yeah.. There is belief everywhere, including in you. Even though you like to pretend that what you're saying is purely knowledge not and belief.
Originally posted by Barcs
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.
No. Not 'complex'. DNA has properties that have only been observed to arise from intelligence and never have been observed to arise from purely physical properties.
Originally posted by Barcs
You BELIEVE DNA is too complex to arise naturally.
Well, I don't like the way you put it. Nanotechnology is a name we came up with for things we designed. But, if cells did not have properties of chips or computers (it's actually the other way around, since it seems we designed chips based on cells), then how come we can connect man-made chips to cells and let them work together? How many times do people argue that we are biological computers? Isn't this what's used to say that we might not have free will blah blah? Basic input/output systems? But no, it's only appearance and it can't possibly ever be true that there is more to the nature of existence than we think. We're only computers when it fits the current paradigm of our world view. Otherwise we're just an accident.
Originally posted by Barcs
You BELIEVE that the cell is nanotechnology
Nonsense. I believe there is a necessity for a fundamental basic intelligence in nature because it is a requirement for logical consistency. That is not the same as "we don't know, therefore higher power". You're trying to put me in the god of the gaps argument, while you yourself just used a similar argument, remember? All your 'higher power' nonsense is to portray me as religious, but that's not what this is about.
Originally posted by Barcs
You BELIEVE that there must be a higher power because we can't explain everything right now
I never said that. But, tell me this. If there is no intelligent arrangement in the universe, then how come we consider ourselves intelligent? Are we separate from the universe? If so, you must accept that something transcends nature and can not be reached by science since science limits itself to nature. If we do not transcend nature and we are subject to it, and nature can produce intelligence, then by default nature must contain and transcend intelligence. What could you possibly have to bring in against this? Especially since intelligence has only ever been observed to arise from other intelligence. For someone who propagates evidence, you sure try hard to work against it.
Originally posted by Barcs
You BELIEVE the universe appears to be ordered and arranged intelligently
Science does not 'prove' anything, because by default everything must be falsifiable. Proofs can come from two places. Philosophy and math. But apparently I'm not allowed to use philosophy.
Originally posted by Barcs
You can't prove anything close to that.
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.
Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by jiggerj
Observe this watch for a short time and it may appear to function without external influence...
The gears work together beautifully.
Originally posted by squiz
Now what has been discovered in the era of micro-biology and the molecular machine paradigm is that science has only deepened the mystery and has not closed the gap in an explanation only widened it by many many magnitudes.
Originally posted by vasaga
...If there is no intelligent arrangement in the universe, then how come we consider ourselves intelligent? Are we separate from the universe? If so, you must accept that something transcends nature and can not be reached by science since science limits itself to nature. If we do not transcend nature and we are subject to it, and nature can produce intelligence, then by default nature must contain and transcend intelligence. What could you possibly have to bring in against this? Especially since intelligence has only ever been observed to arise from other intelligence. For someone who propagates evidence, you sure try hard to work against it.
Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
I think when looking at the sophistication of the world, intelligent design makes more sense than development by chance. The evidence in favor of God is stronger than the evidence against.
Great post, will watch the vids when I have some time.
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros
I disagree completely, getting into the chemical details and problems with every step of what you describe is a long and arduous task but is well documented for anyone to investigate.
There are sooo many obstacles in what you describe it's laughable.
Engineered ribosome experiments have only shown how difficult it really is.
RNA already has some genetic information but not nearly have enough to bridge the gaps. To believe the origin of life is all but solved is the height of scientism. I'm sorry to say.
Also to add, none of it has resolved the many circular causalities at all, none of it adresses the sequencing problem, aka information problem and none of it acounts for the arbitrary semiotic relationships or genetic code. None of it can account for even a single protein.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
What is the sequencing problem? What are the arbitrary semiotic relationships or genetic code? What exactly do you want to account for a single protein? I don't understand what you mean.edit on 13-12-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by squiz
Originally posted by rhinoceros
What is the sequencing problem? What are the arbitrary semiotic relationships or genetic code? What exactly do you want to account for a single protein? I don't understand what you mean.edit on 13-12-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Are you really not aware of the problems?
That's bronze age thinking. If you can't explain it or understand it, or have no answers... God must have done it!
Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
Not just bronze age thinking, it's every age.
There's plenty of indications that there is a coherence and intelligence to the structure of the universe. Inference or deduction is a viable method of thinking.
A lot of great scientists have thought the same thing. The majority of them, really.
Originally posted by squiz
It is the arrangement of molecules that carries the message style information, the sequence of nucleotides.
The arrangement is not defined by chemistry there are no chemical bonds along the longitudal axis of dna. but it is this arrangement that carries the rich genetic information and allows evolution to happen.
Originally posted by squiz
This is but one aspect, semiosis goes hand in hand with this but is much more profound i think. How can a code not imply intent and purpose? it also requires knowledge and protocols to preserve and decode the message. An arbitrary relationship, semantics ultimately takes control of it's physical structure. The non physical is directing the physical via code.
That claim is so pot-kettle... This is for you, between 1:23 and 3:18, and listen carefully why philosophy is important, even to science.
Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by vasaga
You don't even understand the difference between science and philosophy and think that your thoughts are rational because of a subjective interpretation of the universe. You need to show evidence if you want to consider something as truth.