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.

 

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


ID or Intelligent Design is a most unfortunate expression because it has been seriously called into question by the facts of evolution. As a result there can be confusion about what has been questioned. Evolution, driven by intelligence, is not the same as Intelligent Design which is a particular school of thought. Debunking Intelligent Design is not equivalent to showing evolution is not guided by intelligence.




posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by neoholographic
 


ID or Intelligent Design is a most unfortunate expression because it has been seriously called into question by the facts of evolution. As a result there can be confusion about what has been questioned. Evolution, driven by intelligence, is not the same as Intelligent Design which is a particular school of thought. Debunking Intelligent Design is not equivalent to showing evolution is not guided by intelligence.


Neither ID nor "intelligence-driven evolution" kan ever be debunked as long as no testable hypothesis concerning the properties and methods of this intelligence has been presented. "Something did something" is an utterly unfalsifiable claim. It's of course also a completely meaningless claim which explains nothing and offers no way of finding an explanation. A dead end.

Science is a process of building and organizing knowledge by applying the scientific method. Until the proponents of any of these intelligence-derived propositions have demonstrated that they can actually apply the scientific method to their ideas, they will remain non-science.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I could explain to you why this creationist nonsense and "intelligent design" guff is all rubbish but unfortunately I can't understand it for you.
Some people will never understand.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


Yes but science has not proved Evolution by Natural Selection via mutations. Evolution happens but science has not shown that this is the way it happens. Sheldrake tells the difference between what science has shown and what it claims to have show.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by radix
 


Yes but science has not proved Evolution by Natural Selection via mutations. Evolution happens but science has not shown that this is the way it happens. Sheldrake tells the difference between what science has shown and what it claims to have show.


Scientific theories can never be proved, for the simple reason that we don't know everything there is to know. They can, however, be disproved or be shown to be incomplete as new evidence comes to light. The modern theory of evolution is very different from the one that Darwin published.

I can see no compelling reason to believe that an intelligence is required to explain the observed evidence. If you make the absolute claim that mutation, natural selection and genetic drift are not sufficient to explain evolution then that's an assertion you need to justify. Of course, to make that claim you would need to know everything there is to know about mutation, natural selection and genetic drift. Since evolutionary biology is an on-going, active field of research, we obviously don't know everything about the subject. This is why the kind of negative claims that the IDists like to use ("X can't be explained by unguided evolution") are completely indefensible.

To make the case for an intelligence-guided evolution you still need to present positive evidence for this intelligence and since no such evidence has yet been found and no means to acquire any such evidence has been suggested, the whole proposition seems to be hopelessly stuck. Scientific questions are answered by doing actual science. As the proponents of intelligence-guided evolution seem to have excused themselves from doing any such work, they've made themselves irrelevant to the process.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


Yes but I'm only pointing out that scientists are claiming evidence for things that are not in evidence. For example Dawkins says the evidence is for Evolution by Natural Selection via Mutation. He is claiming that the evidence for evolution per se is evidence for the whole package. The evidence only shows that evolution happens. Sheldrake points out that genes only make proteins. That is all they do and scientists are claiming a lot more from them than has been shown to be the case - they are said to be the driving force behind evolution but genes don't explain growth and form. See also The Missing Heritability problem

I believe that evolution happens and is driven by intelligence but I don't accept the current scientific explanation - except, of course, where evidence backs it up. But there is so much propaganda about what science has shown, people all but believe that genes are responsible for all kinds of things, when there is no evidence that they are. The propaganda is so prevalent, that genes are automatically believed to be responsible for everything from Monday morning blues, to violin playing. Everything is believed, by the common man, to be "in the genes" when the reality is that ALL genes do is make proteins. It's a joke.
edit on 29-12-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
It is easy to argue against intelligent design after the Big Bang. Because after the Big Bang everything is being formed in sequance as the singularity expands. And this is what science is observing.

Design can only be proven or disproven when science can figure out how the singularity was formed.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by radix
 


Yes but I'm only pointing out that scientists are claiming evidence for things that are not in evidence. For example Dawkins says the evidence is for Evolution by Natural Selection via Mutation. He is claiming that the evidence for evolution per se is evidence for the whole package. The evidence only shows that evolution happens. Sheldrake points out that genes only make proteins. That is all they do and scientists are claiming a lot more from them than has been shown to be the case - they are said to be the driving force behind evolution but genes don't explain growth and form. See also The Missing Heritability problem

I believe that evolution happens and is driven by intelligence but I don't accept the current scientific explanation - except, of course, where evidence backs it up. But there is so much propaganda about what science has shown, people all but believe that genes are responsible for all kinds of things, when there is no evidence that they are. The propaganda is so prevalent, that genes are automatically believed to be responsible for everything from Monday morning blues, to violin playing. Everything is believed, by the common man, to be "in the genes" when the reality is that ALL genes do is make proteins. It's a joke.
edit on 29-12-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


Mutation, natural selection and genetic drift are all demonstrable and verifiable, in stark contrast to an illusive "intelligence" that's never been observed as a cause for evolution. The fact that there are things we can't currently explain is a truism - it's why we do science in the first place.

"Something did something" isn't going to help us understand anything. What's the hypothesis? What testable predictions can you derive from it? How do you intend to test these predictions?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
It probably is all about predictions,will the crops grow?will my kids be ok?will i live on once i'm dead?(ha!)will some big designer in the sky take care of me?lol
No Chance!your on your own,and THIS is all you get.Get over it,get on with it.
Maybe try and be nice.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by radix
 


Yes but I'm only pointing out that scientists are claiming evidence for things that are not in evidence. For example Dawkins says the evidence is for Evolution by Natural Selection via Mutation. He is claiming that the evidence for evolution per se is evidence for the whole package. The evidence only shows that evolution happens. Sheldrake points out that genes only make proteins. That is all they do and scientists are claiming a lot more from them than has been shown to be the case - they are said to be the driving force behind evolution but genes don't explain growth and form. See also The Missing Heritability problem

I believe that evolution happens and is driven by intelligence but I don't accept the current scientific explanation - except, of course, where evidence backs it up. But there is so much propaganda about what science has shown, people all but believe that genes are responsible for all kinds of things, when there is no evidence that they are. The propaganda is so prevalent, that genes are automatically believed to be responsible for everything from Monday morning blues, to violin playing. Everything is believed, by the common man, to be "in the genes" when the reality is that ALL genes do is make proteins. It's a joke.
edit on 29-12-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


I fully support your claim.

The body can change. Faculties can change and often do under the impact of Yogic practices.

Body is material, and DNA is nothing but chemicals.

A science divorced from spirituality is bound to get into dead ends.

However the current earth science is still in early years. It may take another 1000 years for humans to discover serious shortcomings in their understanding.

The political part is there as the 'pundits' never want to share critical information with the masses. It is about control.

Right now the political mood is towards believing that the Universe evolved and functions without an intelligent power. This will persist for some more time.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


I'm not disputing that mutations and such are not true. I am saying it has not been demonstrated that these things drive evolution in the way they say they do. Gene driven evolution is an article of faith, not a proven fact. Belief in God is not some blind faith in some intelligence in the sky. Belief is a conviction that God is the best explaination for the world, it transcends science. Why does belief in God have to be predictive? You cannot turn faith into science, it transcends science. Faith transcends the intellect and moves into the realm of consciousness.

This, from the above link on missing heritability, shows the bias and dishonesty in the way things are being reported-


Some issues raised by heritability studies
Perhaps the most fundamental confusion in the literature on heritability arises from the universal, unquestioned, and indeed unthinking assumption that “heritable” automatically equates to “genetic”. Statements like the following occur with numbing regularity and with the assumed obviousness of “2 + 2 = 4”:

Heritability is a measure of genetic influence. If a trait has high heritability, its varying from individual to individual in a population can be explained genetically (Downes 2009*).
Estimates of heritability quantify how much of the variation in disease liability in a population can be attributed to genetic variation (Tenesa and Haley 2013*).

However many thousands of times such statements are repeated, they are remarkably baseless. One scarcely finds any attempt to ground them in evidence, so that unexamined and unspoken assumption rules the day. It’s not only that no one has a clue how to explain or attribute all the heritability of traits to genes. More importantly, the very idea of such explanation or attribution conflicts with what we do know.Nothing less than a living organism — a zygote, in the case of sexual reproduction — is the inherited material of evolutionary importance. The organism’s living powers, and all its traits, are rooted in the integral unity of its directed activities, not in any particular set of molecules subject to those activities. (Again, see the main article.)
The chief virtue of the debate over missing heritability may be that it has forced at least some biologists to stop and consider the basic terms of the discussion, to question whether these terms are being employed in a reasonable way, and even at times to doubt whether they have any useful meaning at all. This kind of concern has long been in evidence here and there, even though it has yet to constrain the language and assumptions dominating discussions of inheritance.
In a standard primer on population genetics, published in 1988, Daniel Hartl acknowledged that “heritability says virtually nothing about the actual mode of inheritance of a quantitative trait”. Noting that the concept generally ignores interactions between genes (epistasis) as well as gene-environment interactions, he concluded that heritability “lends itself to no easy interpretation in simple genetic terms3”.


This is the kind of dishonest, consensus thinking that has created the gene myth. I have underlined the essential argument.
edit on 30-12-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by radix
 


I'm not disputing that mutations and such are not true. I am saying it has not been demonstrated that these things drive evolution in the way they say they do. Gene driven evolution is an article of faith, not a proven fact. Belief in God is not some blind faith in some intelligence in the sky. Belief is a conviction that God is the best explaination for the world, it transcends science. Why does belief in God have to be predictive? You cannot turn faith into science, it transcends science. Faith transcends the intellect and moves into the realm of consciousness.


I'm sorry but you don't get to make broad-brush statements about science and then hide behind faith and transcendence. If you make a scientific claim you need to back it up with science. If you're appealing to something which cannot be studied by science, it is - by definition - not science.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

GargIndia

A science divorced from spirituality is bound to get into dead ends.



Science is "divorced from spirituality" because it can only study that for which it has the tools to do the studying. It's so obvious it's basically a tautology. Suggesting causes that cannot be studied is the ultimate dead end.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

GargIndia

Body is material, and DNA is nothing but chemicals.


Pardon? Eh?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

radix

EnPassant
reply to post by radix
 


I'm not disputing that mutations and such are not true. I am saying it has not been demonstrated that these things drive evolution in the way they say they do. Gene driven evolution is an article of faith, not a proven fact. Belief in God is not some blind faith in some intelligence in the sky. Belief is a conviction that God is the best explaination for the world, it transcends science. Why does belief in God have to be predictive? You cannot turn faith into science, it transcends science. Faith transcends the intellect and moves into the realm of consciousness.


I'm sorry but you don't get to make broad-brush statements about science and then hide behind faith and transcendence. If you make a scientific claim you need to back it up with science. If you're appealing to something which cannot be studied by science, it is - by definition - not science.


But this is what I am saying, science is making claims it cannot back up. It is saying that genes drive evolution and they cannot back this up, especially when it comes to growth and form.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

EnPassant

But this is what I am saying, science is making claims it cannot back up. It is saying that genes drive evolution and they cannot back this up, especially when it comes to growth and form.


If you're saying genes do not drive evolution, then that's a scientific claim which you need to substantiate. First you need to establish that genes do not drive evolution and then you need to find what does - which leads us right back to the questions you seem unwilling to address: What's the hypothesis? What testable predictions can you derive from it? How can you test them?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

EnPassant
But this is what I am saying, science is making claims it cannot back up. It is saying that genes drive evolution and they cannot back this up, especially when it comes to growth and form.


First of all, it is not just genes that are driving evolution. I guess you should know that by now, if you interested in subject.

1. Natural selection (survival of the fittest)

2. Genetic variation (more chances for survival)

3. Mutation (origin for all variations)

4. Sexual selection

There are many experiments to name that support all those observations. Very easy to research, if you really interested. No real question is - are you interested to learn the truth? Please answer this question before we proceed from here.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

radix

GargIndia

A science divorced from spirituality is bound to get into dead ends.



Science is "divorced from spirituality" because it can only study that for which it has the tools to do the studying. It's so obvious it's basically a tautology. Suggesting causes that cannot be studied is the ultimate dead end.


What you said is not true.

The spirituality has to be developed just like scientific knowledge. It takes years of study to acquire a PHD. However people want to gain spirituality by just a visit to a church. This is why they fail.

The purpose of human life is a fact that every human needs to understand.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


And what makes you think that those who study spirituality can explain you purpose of human life?

It is very unnatural that priest who talk about spirituality and purpose of human life are forbidden to 'have' a life.


Yes, today you can get PhD in many things, including 'alternative' history. If you don't trust me, just check man behind Bosnian Pyramid - Dr. Samir Osmanagic, who talks about 'high Mayan civilization', very spiritual, who would kill hundreds of people per day in ceremonies... Also sacrifice of young boys for many different reasons...

Now, that is not spirituality you are talking about, is it?
edit on 31-12-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   

SuperFrog

EnPassant
But this is what I am saying, science is making claims it cannot back up. It is saying that genes drive evolution and they cannot back this up, especially when it comes to growth and form.


First of all, it is not just genes that are driving evolution. I guess you should know that by now, if you interested in subject.

1. Natural selection (survival of the fittest)

2. Genetic variation (more chances for survival)

3. Mutation (origin for all variations)

4. Sexual selection

There are many experiments to name that support all those observations. Very easy to research, if you really interested. No real question is - are you interested to learn the truth? Please answer this question before we proceed from here.


Natural selection is a statistical drift in many things eg the fittest businesses will survive, but this does not mean that natural selection is a DRIVING force in evolution. See my above quotes re. Genetic variation: genes make proteins, it has not been shown that they drive evolution, this is an article of faith. Mutations don't explain growth and form - see Rupert Sheldrake's writing on this.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join