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.

 

Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

page: 18
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


And I suppose lack of conclusive evidence has nothing to do with that?


Oh, and multiverse theory is a very real possibility. Look it up sometime.




posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 





however is that based on the odds of this coming about (as illustrated in my analogy) I think the more reasonable explanation is ID.


Your analogy is not evidence of odds. Do you have any calculations to prove these odds?

Let me warn you creationist have tried to prove this idea, but ideas in science are measured by how convincing they are to other scientists, and by this measure both creationism generally and ID specifically have been spectacular failures for a long time.

Good luck....


Often on talk.origins we have seen assertions to the effect that there exists a law that is well known to physicists and/or mathematicians (possibly implying that it is a mathematical theorem) that there is a particular order of probability below which any event is considered to be "essentially impossible". This statement usually preceeds a calculation based on some unrealistic model of the formation of complicated organic molecules via the random assembly of atoms as "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible. At the end of this article, references are given to several creationist sources that refer to this probability assertion as "Borel's Law".


Link



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


Would this not imply that laws such as gravity exist outside of the universe?
No. I don't understand how you get that from Hawking's statement. Gravity is one of the laws which came into being with the creation of the Universe. Maybe you should read more of Hawking's (and other cosmologist's) work instead of jumping on a single out of context statement and drawing an incorrect assumption about it.


You have me a bit confused as to what, in your belief, is grounds for reasonable speculation?
Speculation doesn't have to be reasonable but it helps if there is at least some factual basis for it. At least is does for me. That's why I prefer "hard" science fiction to fantasy novels.



So where again does speculation based on perceived evidence end and fairy tales and unicorns begin?
In the minds of men.

edit on 6/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


And I suppose lack of conclusive evidence has nothing to do with that?


Oh, and multiverse theory is a very real possibility. Look it up sometime.


OK, but lets follow that thought through...if we flip it around would you propose that the lack of conclusive evidence to suggest a naturalistic cause (which is the reality) is somehow proof of ID, or a just cause to ridicule the premise of naturalism? Can't you see the double standard there?

And can you explain to me how the multiverse theory is any more a real possibility than the ID theory?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
The moon "just happening to be further away from Earth to allow for life" doesn't mean intelligent design is at work.

It just means that as soon as life was able to flourish, it DID.

If you have faith in a higher power that created this situation just for us, then that's fine. For most of us, science tells us something different. Your faith should be strong enough that you should be willing to accept that there might be alternative answers.
edit on 2-6-2013 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 




Your analogy is not evidence of odds. Do you have any calculations to prove these odds?


I would never attempt to give concrete mathematical figures as I don't claim to be an expert in probability. My statements were general and self evident. If you don't see that the odds of you and I existing on a naturalist view are absurdly slim, I can't help you.



Let me warn you creationist have tried to prove this idea, but ideas in science are measured by how convincing they are to other scientists, and by this measure both creationism generally and ID specifically have been spectacular failures for a long time.

Good luck....


And I suppose to be considered a bona-fide "scientist", one must first transpose upon their very core beliefs of a naturalist view? No, but unfortunately, this kind of homogenized cult mentality does pervade forums such as these as you have so aptly illustrated with your comments.

I'll stand by my statements...take them as you will. The odds of life coming into being by chance are vastly smaller than a fully functional computer being formed from scratch by the Pacific Ocean.
edit on 2-6-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


The odds of life coming into being by chance are vastly smaller than a fully functional computer being formed from scratch by the Pacific Ocean.

Nah. Life is the result of chemical reactions.

A computer requires manufacturing...for the most part. Biological systems can actually be used as computers.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


All of your fancy words and indignation don't mean crap without solid facts. Stop sputtering and either put out or shut up, please. You're just giving us reasons to accept your beliefs without reason and then getting offended when we don't buy it. I'm tired of this game. We're just not that easy, OK?

Give us facts, we'll accept them. Give us sound theories, we'll work with you. You have done neither. Sorry.

edit on 2-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 





I would never attempt to give concrete mathematical figures as I don't claim to be an expert in probability. My statements were general and self evident. If you don't see that the odds of you and I existing on a naturalist view are absurdly slim, I can't help you.

Absurdly slim? Your studies have failed you, the evidence for natural processes is overwhelming.
As for your statements being self evident, if all you have is rhetoric and unfounded assertions then your position is intellectually bankrupt and deserves the ridicule and criticism.




And I suppose to be considered a bona-fide "scientist", one must first transpose upon their very core beliefs of a naturalist view? No, but unfortunately, this kind of homogenized cult mentality does pervade forums such as these as you have so aptly illustrated with your comments.


This has nothing to do with a cult, I'm asking for evidence. There is no substance behind your ideas or ID, no ideas that cannot be refuted in a few sentences, with evidence and always logic, no real research or even any hypotheses testing of any kind. ID is just apologetics wrapped around a religion to be served to those few gullible creationists who need any kind of pseudo-scientific explanation. And you want to talk of "homogenized cult mentality"? That's laughable.




I'll stand by my statements...take them as you will. The odds of life coming into being by chance are vastly smaller than a fully functional computer being formed from scratch by the Pacific Ocean.


Your computer analogy is just another straw man repackaged similar to Hoyle's 747 in the junk yard fallacy that has been debunked a thousand times world wide and in these forums.
I have to laugh everytime someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about. How about you show us some of this vaunted scientific research that is being done in the name of ID?
edit on 2-6-2013 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



No. I don't understand how you get that from Hawking's statement. Gravity is one of the laws which came into being with the creation of the Universe.

Let's look at what Hawking said once again.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

The plain sense understanding of these words are as follows: for the reason that; due to the fact that gravity exists, subsequently the universe can create itself. Unless there is some sort of esoteric way of interpreting this fairly straight forward statement that I am apparently missing?


Speculation doesn't have to be reasonable but it helps if there is at least some factual basis for it. At least is does for me.

Now we're getting closer to the roots. What constitutes factual basis? Is it not a fact that to the earth-bound, naked eye the diameter of the sun matches the diameter of the full moon? Is it not a fact that the sun-moon-earth relationship is unique in the discovered universe? Why don't these observations qualify as facts that can prompt speculation?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


Unless there is some sort of esoteric way of interpreting this fairly straight forward statement that I am apparently missing?
Yes, there is. You are missing a great deal. Read the book...and others by him and other cosmologists. Do not rely on a single out of context quote to form your interpretation of what science says about the matter.


Is it not a fact that to the earth-bound, naked eye the diameter of the sun matches the diameter of the full moon?
Occasionally and briefly it does. Mostly it doesn't. But you know eclipses don't occur during a full Moon, right?


Is it not a fact that the sun-moon-earth relationship is unique in the discovered universe?
As of yet no moons have been discovered outside of the Solar System. According to your logic that means there are none?


Why don't these observations qualify as facts that can prompt speculation?
Speculate all you wish. Don't confuse speculation with evidence.

edit on 6/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


All of your fancy words and indignation don't mean crap without solid facts. Stop sputtering and either put out or shut up, please. You're just giving us reasons to accept your beliefs without reason and then getting offended when we don't buy it. I'm tired of this game. We're just not that easy, OK?

Give us facts, we'll accept them. Give us sound theories, we'll work with you. You have done neither. Sorry.

edit on 2-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


My sincere apologies if I have come off as indignant. I recognize that tact is a weakness of mine, one that I am working on, but truly, I am not resentful or put off by this debate in the slightest. I have enjoyed having my mind picked and in turn picking the minds of others in search for truth.

I am just a slight bit disappointed that you have chosen not to speak to either of the questions presented to you in my last response. That, my friend, is your prerogative and I can respect it.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 



Absurdly slim? Your studies have failed you, the evidence for natural processes is overwhelming.

Again, you have gravely misunderstood my stance. I am not speaking to the natural process of evolution, I am speaking to the unlikelihood of the conditions for our system to exist and develop to have come about spontaneously and without reason. After all, this thread is fundamentally about origins is it not?


As for your statements being self evident, if all you have is rhetoric and unfounded assertions then your position is intellectually bankrupt and deserves the ridicule and criticism.

And I would ask, what are you asserting that is "founded" concerning the origins of life? I am not claiming proof, as the title of this thread did. I am merely speculating based on what I perceive is the most supported by perceivable evidence as anyone must when dealing with the question of origins.


I'm asking for evidence. There is no substance behind your ideas or ID, no ideas that cannot be refuted in a few sentences, with evidence and always logic, no real research or even any hypotheses testing of any kind.

By evidence you mean grounds for belief correct? I perceive that you aren't keen to the fact that this debate (ID vs spontaneous self creation) whether you wish it to be or not is necessarily one of ideology and not science. The OP has put forth many substantive ideas that could constitute themselves as "evidence" for ID and most certainly do in his view.


Your computer analogy is just another straw man repackaged similar to Hoyle's 747 in the junk yard fallacy that has been debunked a thousand times world wide and in these forums.

According to you, first it was red herring and now it has slipped into straw man. May I ask in what way has my analogy misrepresented your position? If you are going to accuse me of committing a grievous logical fallacy I think it's only fair that you qualify that statement. I thought my analogy turned out quite nicely...I'm sorry it didn't resonate with you. I hope other readers will be able to gather some insight from it about why this topic is worth thinking deeply about.


I have to laugh everytime someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about. How about you show us some of this vaunted scientific research that is being done in the name of ID?

Interesting, my gut reaction in that kind of scenario is to do my best to steer them in the right direction. As soon as you can show me some vaunted scientific research that is being done to prove that the origins of the universe are self contained and without cause...you have my word. Deal?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Yes, there is. You are missing a great deal. Read the book...and others by him and other cosmologists. Do not rely on a single out of context quote to form your interpretation of what science says about the matter.

I'll take your word on it. I don't feel compelled to labor through Hawking's book or any like it for the same reasons you refused to read the article I provided you which aptly clears up this whole misunderstanding concerning the origins of the laws of physics to begin with. Here is the link if you so happen to have a change of heart.


Occasionally and briefly it does. Mostly it doesn't. But you know eclipses don't occur during a full Moon, right?

Yes. It does.To the naked eye as I have just asserted. I made no mention of a solar eclipse.


As of yet no moons have been discovered outside of the Solar System. According to your logic that means there are none?

No. Not necessarily. And when a life supporting system is discovered, I will be forced to re-evaluate...just as you will when/if God chooses to reveal himself to humanity.



Speculate all you wish. Don't confuse speculation with evidence.

Why thank you kind sir. And in turn, might I ask that you not confuse evidence with speculation.

I have to say this was fun. As much as it pains me to say it, I have spent entirely too much time on ATS in the past couple of days, and need to pay more attention to my duties here in the real world. I'll try and pop in here more regularly, but please don't take it the wrong way if I am not prompt in my response.

Au revoir for now.
edit on 3-6-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Hrm....


My stance is still the same as was in the other thread concerning ID....

A statement of absolutes, such as "this is absolutely true" or "this is absolutely false"(or in this case, "undeniable proof") requires absolute data....

Probability will lend credence to a belief in any particular data-set...but it won't prove it.
That is to say, we've observed the laws of gravity time and time again but this can only give us a RATIONAL belief in the effects of gravity up to 99.999999999~~~%

Therefore-
Undeniable? I can't agree with that statement. Sorry.

A2D



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Pretty sure undeniable just refers to the stance this person has taken up in their belief. Anything logical and rational to the contrary of this belief is unacceptable... willful ignorance is a shame.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Phage
 



Occasionally and briefly it does. Mostly it doesn't. But you know eclipses don't occur during a full Moon, right?

Yes. It does.To the naked eye as I have just asserted. I made no mention of a solar eclipse.


Do you have any idea how big of an idiot that made you sound? It just unraveled the depths of your logic and rationality when problem solving to nil, making all previous logic and deduction extremely questionable, with such a very simple logic problem. Please tell me where exactly; you have viewed the Earth's shadow on the moon when it's full and free of all Earth shadows?

I also suppose you're one of these the earth is 6,000 years old types? Since you say nothing else is out there; hell even the Vatican recently stated there's a possibility of life elsewhere in the universe... and they used to kill people for suggesting the Earth revolved around Sun. You would think they'd drag their feet the longest; on the issue of life elsewhere in the cosmos. Of course it's going to have the man with the grey beard spin on it... too much money left to be made on willful ignorance to throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

I do have a confession to make; I never expected to come here and read actual undeniable proof of intelligent design. You might judge me as not having an open mind on the subject and you'd be right; but the same could be said about your self if you're going to create a topic at least comprehend what those saying your proof is no proof at all... if you wanted nothing but like minded praise; and to completely ignore contrary evidence... organizing a campfire kumbaya may have been a better choice?

Deny ignorance doesn't mean; deny your own ignorance and argue your position, until you are blue in the face. But hey you have every right to believe whatever you want... and in a forum meant as a debate of the facts and logical rational theorem that rises off of those facts. But the op only stacks a belief on top of a belief... and two wrong will never equal a right.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


I don't feel compelled to labor through Hawking's book or any like it for the same reasons you refused to read the article I provided
Then maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about what science says about the origins of the Universe. I make no claims about what that article says, unlike you making claims about what science says.


Yes. It does.To the naked eye as I have just asserted. I made no mention of a solar eclipse.
No. It doesn't. The naked eye can easily discern the difference during an annular eclipse (the predominant eclipse type). The major point of this thread is the erroneous claim that during a solar eclipse the Sun is perfectly covered by the Moon.



Why thank you kind sir. And in turn, might I ask that you not confuse evidence with speculation.
I make every effort not to do so.

edit on 6/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 

But you know eclipses don't occur during a full Moon, right?

Lunar eclipses always occur during a full moon.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Very nearly equal

Love it.
Works with horseshoes. Works with nukes.
Close enough for government work.
Good enough for God too, I guess.


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

The God Theory

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

If you think of white light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...

If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will identify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...

Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

More @ Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field.(MUST READ!)

The very slight apparent "flaw" could easily represent an intelligent limitation from, absolute perfection, in order so that the experience of life and the process of evolutionary growth (towards perfection?), might be possible.


Aside: As this thread has continued, I've noticed a serious flaw involving analysis of causes and effects (or compelte lack thereof) in the reasoning of the opponents of ID / proponents of the blind chance, luck/fluke theory, which I intend to address, and it might explain why they are so shrill in their protestations as it relates to this thread and the data presented, revealing in the process an extreme bias of their own which btw, isn't the least bit scientific or objective, beginning with one and ONLY one presupposition, yet without offering any real evidence to the contrary which would bolster the opposing theory.

Later,

NAM


edit on 4-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join