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.
reply to post by Barcs
By definition, natural means "not man made", so that wouldn't work.
Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Barcs
Except when you take naturally occurring phenomena and claim it has an inventor or designer when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was designed
What would you accept as evidence of a designer?
Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.
I actually don't understand this... If two identical events produced different outcomes, would that not be a sign of randomness and chaos instead of a designer, while the same thing happening over and over would be a sign of structure?
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Barcs
Except when you take naturally occurring phenomena and claim it has an inventor or designer when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was designed
What would you accept as evidence of a designer?
That is a great question. I would accept a designer if I witnessed two identical events that produced totally different outcomes. If I were to create a computer game I could have bombs going off where one blows up a building while another bomb infests the city with mice. I am the designer so I can do this.
In this reality, if I saw two mountains side by side, with one held firmly in place by gravity and the other one floating 50 feet off the ground, this would be evidence of a designer.
However, if every event produces the exact same outcome then we must conclude that everything is formed naturally. Of course we could say that the designer made everything to conform to the laws of the universe, but this would remove any and all evidence of the designer and leave us only with nature. We can't prove a designer. We can't prove a perfect designer, and by his own design we can only prove what is natural.
How was I claiming I know the truth when I've presented three possible situations regarding intelligence? Logic works with premises. If the premises are true and the argument is sound, the conclusion must be true. I have not seen you argue against any of my premises. All you've done is say "you have no evidence herp derp". And if I didn't present any science, what is Robert Lanza?
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.
In order to follow logic, you need true proven statements, not what ifs. ID is hypothetical. It may be true, but as of now, there is no scientific evidence for it. That was my point from the beginning. You are claiming you already know the truth when none of us actually do. You tried to defend your belief but there was nothing that reflected any type of science that applies to physical reality.
Originally posted by vasaga
Explain to me how something like biocentrism is christian fundamentalism.
Originally posted by flyingfish
Originally posted by squiz
Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.
Agreed, there is nothing about science here, only egos and world views. And of course scientism and religion bashing.
Agreed, there is nothing but sciency talk and that's the problem. ID has no interest in answering questions, no interest in collecting real data. ID is a political movement with a political goal.The goal is simply to confuse the public sufficiently to allow Christian Fundamentalism to hijack education.
Google the wedge strategy to see their aims. Google
edit on 14-12-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)
I actually don't understand this... If two identical events produced different outcomes, would that not be a sign of randomness and chaos instead of a designer, while the same thing happening over and over would be a sign of structure?
In this reality, if I saw two mountains side by side, with one held firmly in place by gravity and the other one floating 50 feet off the ground, this would be evidence of a designer.
Of course we could say that the designer made everything to conform to the laws of the universe, but this would remove any and all evidence of the designer and leave us only with nature.
We can't prove a perfect designer, and by his own design we can only prove what is natural.
How do you know they are mindless in the first place?
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by vasaga
I actually don't understand this... If two identical events produced different outcomes, would that not be a sign of randomness and chaos instead of a designer, while the same thing happening over and over would be a sign of structure?
Not really. If repeated events produce the same results then they are bound by the mindless laws of nature. These laws are unbreakable and unwavering.
So, an example would be, if we drop a cup of coffee, one time it falls down and the other time it falls up? And that would be a mind changing the laws..?
Originally posted by jiggerj
If the same events produce different results then it can be said that a mind might be behind it, manipulating outcomes for reasons we would probably never understand.
Questioning is the nature of philosophy. So what you're fundamentally saying is that we shouldn't question what science is proposing, because it causes confusion?
Of course. That's because philosophy precedes mathematics and science. You can't refute philosophy because to do it you'd have to use it. The scientific method was also created through philosophy.
Originally posted by flyingfish
No...
Science is one thing philosophy is another.
No one can refute philosophy. Neither can one confirm it. It is purely philosophical and has no emperical evidence supporting it or opposing it.
Sometimes you have to learn to think outside the box......
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj
They do, however, imply an intelligence, an intent. Not just a random flux, but a hand that knows what it's doing.
Originally posted by homeslice
superintelligent design huh?
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
There's a LOT more to it than this which points a rather sturdy finger at intelligent design, which would make for a thread of its own but this is a start anyway.