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: 12
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

EnPassant
There is no burden of proof on me because my main point, in this thread, is the way science is being dishonestly presented. I never meant my first post to this thread to lead into a debate on evolution - my concern is the rhetoric being used.


So you're not denying the possibility that mutation, natural selection and genetic drift are sufficient causes for evolution?


The appearance of design is evidence enough. OK, materialists will argue that intelligence is not necessary to explain the appearance of design but for me the appearance of design is a strong point in my argument and, for me, constitutes evidence (evidence, on both sides of the argument is, of course, subjective)


The appearance of design is clearly not evidence for actual design since you haven't been able to exclude the possibility that it's the result of unguided evolution. As we agree that proving such a negative is virtually impossible, the only way to justify your claim is to find positive evidence in its support - something that, thus far, has been thin on the ground.


My evidence would be the usual arguments from spirituality - you would have heard these already? But belief in God is not just a way of explaining physical things or answering scientific questions, it is far more than this and it is for these more diverse reasons that I would argue for the existence of a creator. But it is big subject...


No disrespect, but an argument from spirituality doesn't really qualify as scientific evidence.


No scientific hypothesis but a thesis concerning consciousness and awareness of God - you wouldn't like to hear it though.


I was asking for a hypothesis that makes specific, testable predictions so I guess not.


I am. It is wrong to pretend that a theory is a theorem and this is what Dawkins does. I am quite entitled to criticize him (a theorem is a proved theory).


So it all boils down to a personal beef you're having with Dawkins? Knock yourself out with that, just don't try to use him as a straw man to attack science.




posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   

EnPassant
There is no burden of proof on me because my main point, in this thread, is the way science is being dishonestly presented. I never meant my first post to this thread to lead into a debate on evolution - my concern is the rhetoric being used.

Only dishonestly presented thing is someones view of world begging, documented in fictional book of folklore called Bible (or any holy book for that mater). Things that are 'written' without single evidence or proof. It is above my capacity of understanding that after many thing are proven not being right, people still believe in those 'gods words'.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


I am waiting for science to come up with a worthwhile theory of evolution. The current ToE is so speculative I will withhold comment until there is real evidence that genes do all the stuff they are supposed to do. ALL that has been shown is that they make proteins and scientists are saying to me "We think these protein makers code for cell growth, organ development, growth, form and a whole host of stuff. We even think they develop consciousness itself" ok, I'm saying, show me the evidence that these protein makers do all this. The evidence is not forthcoming, but scientists have faith in their theory. It is an article of faith.

They have provided me with no reason to believe mutations etc. drive evolution. The evidence is just not there. No doubt genes are involved and so is natural selection as an automatic effect of nature as a whole*. Natural selection exists in many different aspects of the world. If they could show me the gene that makes me sceptical of the whole thing - now, that would be impressive...

*Automatic Selection is a better expression. By the way, natural selection does not support the idea that mutations drive evolution. N.S. is going to happen any way. Don't let Dawkins lead you into believing that demonstrations of natural selection support the current ToE. Evidence for Natural selection supports the idea of natural selection, that is all.


edit on 2-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   

SuperFrog

EnPassant
There is no burden of proof on me because my main point, in this thread, is the way science is being dishonestly presented. I never meant my first post to this thread to lead into a debate on evolution - my concern is the rhetoric being used.

Only dishonestly presented thing is someones view of world begging, documented in fictional book of folklore called Bible (or any holy book for that mater). Things that are 'written' without single evidence or proof. It is above my capacity of understanding that after many thing are proven not being right, people still believe in those 'gods words'.


Evidence is subjective, even in ToE. What is considered to be evidence is simply a body of facts that are consistent with an idea - evidence and proof are not the same thing. Religion does not simply come from a book, there are many reasons why people believe in God. To characterise belief as mindless adherence to a book is misleading.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


"Genes make proteins"?

Can genes make proteins? If yes, then why no proteins are made in a dead body?

The science fails miserably in explaining two very basic facts - birth and death. So much for "scientific knowledge".

Yes Science is true to a good degree as far as knowledge of material world is concerned - that is non-living objects. Science does not answer the question of "creation" as well as "life" to any convincing degree.

The failure of science is directly related to its ignorance of 'soul' or 'spirit' (different people use different words. We use Sanskrit word 'atma').

Several powers of God are always active. God's power called 'Sutratma Vayu" places a soul in a body during conception, and takes it away from body at the time of death. No scientific instrument can see a soul because soul exists in a different dimension (or made from a finer material) than body and earth and heavens that are visible to humans.

Science has serious limitations in terms of its instruments which are limited to gross faculties of human body.

A soul has much greater powers than a human body; but these powers can only be activated by spirituality and spiritual progress. So soul is imprisoned in a human body or an animal body and is subject to the limitations of that body.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
A human is unable to see the soul of self or others because the 'karmas' blind a soul and limit it to the faculties that a body possesses.

As spiritual progress is achieved by a human, he/she starts to possess qualities beyond the capabilities of human body - for example reading thoughts of other person, knowing inner state (like health issues) of another person etc.

A society without spirituality is a society of animals; where humans live to eat, sleep, and enjoy bodily pleasures and pain. There is no higher purpose. Such a society is increasingly enmeshed in prostitution and slavery, and eventually collapses. No knowledge of science can save such a society.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   

EnPassant

I am waiting for science to come up with a worthwhile theory of evolution. The current ToE is so speculative I will withhold comment until there is real evidence that genes do all the stuff they are supposed to do. ALL that has been shown is that they make proteins and scientists are saying to me "We think these protein makers code for cell growth, organ development, growth, form and a whole host of stuff. We even think they develop consciousness itself" ok, I'm saying, show me the evidence that these protein makers do all this. The evidence is not forthcoming, but scientists have faith in their theory. It is an article of faith.

They have provided me with no reason to believe mutations etc. drive evolution. The evidence is just not there. No doubt genes are involved and so is natural selection as an automatic effect of nature as a whole*. Natural selection exists in many different aspects of the world. If they could show me the gene that makes me sceptical of the whole thing - now, that would be impressive...


I wasn't asking for your evaluation of the current theory of evolution. My question is whether you accept it as possible that evolution is not guided by an intelligence.

Since science follows where the evidence leads it, your continued claims that it requires faith are still false.


*Automatic Selection is a better expression. By the way, natural selection does not support the idea that mutations drive evolution. N.S. is going to happen any way. Don't let Dawkins lead you into believing that demonstrations of natural selection support the current ToE. Evidence for Natural selection supports the idea of natural selection, that is all.


Does natural selection require genetic variation?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   

GargIndia

"Genes make proteins"?

Can genes make proteins? If yes, then why no proteins are made in a dead body?


Genes can do better than that - they can make proteins in a cell-free suspension. Go forth and educate yourself.


The science fails miserably in explaining two very basic facts - birth and death. So much for "scientific knowledge".


Are you saying we don't know how people are born and how they die?


Yes Science is true to a good degree as far as knowledge of material world is concerned - that is non-living objects. Science does not answer the question of "creation" as well as "life" to any convincing degree.


Are you equating "science doesn't answer" with "science can't answer"?


The failure of science is directly related to its ignorance of 'soul' or 'spirit' (different people use different words. We use Sanskrit word 'atma').


You haven't demonstrated any failure of science anymore than you've demonstrated the existance of a soul.


No scientific instrument can see a soul because soul exists in a different dimension (or made from a finer material) than body and earth and heavens that are visible to humans.


Yes, we must always keep those souls away from where those pesky scientists can study them.


A soul has much greater powers than a human body; but these powers can only be activated by spirituality and spiritual progress. So soul is imprisoned in a human body or an animal body and is subject to the limitations of that body.


You should probably start by demonstrating that this soul even exists before you attribute any powers to it.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   

GargIndia
A society without spirituality is a society of animals; where humans live to eat, sleep, and enjoy bodily pleasures and pain. There is no higher purpose. Such a society is increasingly enmeshed in prostitution and slavery, and eventually collapses. No knowledge of science can save such a society.


This should be easy enough for you to demonstrate in countries that are predominantly secular. See any signs of increased prostitution and slavery there or any reason to believe they're collapsing?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

GargIndia
A human is unable to see the soul of self or others because the 'karmas' blind a soul and limit it to the faculties that a body possesses.

As spiritual progress is achieved by a human, he/she starts to possess qualities beyond the capabilities of human body - for example reading thoughts of other person, knowing inner state (like health issues) of another person etc.

A society without spirituality is a society of animals; where humans live to eat, sleep, and enjoy bodily pleasures and pain. There is no higher purpose. Such a society is increasingly enmeshed in prostitution and slavery, and eventually collapses. No knowledge of science can save such a society.



Mankind's arrogance in believing we're something different from other animals is the whole basis of religious belief.
In nature we are no more important than amoebas.
Only in our own minds we see ourselves as such.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

I wasn't asking for your evaluation of the current theory of evolution. My question is whether you accept it as possible that evolution is not guided by an intelligence.


No, I don't think consciousness or evolved beings can come from chance mutations.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

EnPassant

I wasn't asking for your evaluation of the current theory of evolution. My question is whether you accept it as possible that evolution is not guided by an intelligence.


No, I don't think consciousness or evolved beings can come from chance mutations.


So you're claiming it's impossible?

You seemed to have missed this question:


Does natural selection require genetic variation?

edit on 2-1-2014 by radix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

In nature we are no more important than amoebas.


I find statements like this, and statements that humanity is only an insignificant speck in a vast universe, demeaning to humanity and completely unrealistic and superficial. Humans are, as far as we know, the most developed physical beings in the universe. We should not use these expressions to belittle humanity. Nor should we inflate ourselves with arrogance.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

EnPassant

In nature we are no more important than amoebas.


I find statements like this, and statements that humanity is only an insignificant speck in a vast universe, demeaning to humanity and completely unrealistic and superficial. Humans are, as far as we know, the most developed physical beings in the universe. We should not use these expressions to belittle humanity. Nor should we inflate ourselves with arrogance.


Physically we're really not that developed as it's only our cognisance that sets us apart.
Aside from that, we're no different from any other species.
Hence the arrogance in thinking we are.
We are only as intelligent as we define intelligence to be.
It's not belittling humanity in the slightest though, it's being completely realistic.

edit on 2/1/14 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

You seemed to have missed this question: [Does natural selection require genetic variation?]


Seemingly it does. I have no doubt that genes are an important part of the whole scheme of things. My problem is that claims are being made for genes that are not supported by evidence. Nor do I have any doubt that small changes in species are required for Natural Selection to weed out the less fit, but what is causing these changes? I don't believe it is the genome although the genome is also changed. If a new species is to emerge the protein makers would also have to keep pace with those changes but that does not mean the protein makers are responsible for the changes. That is a very important question concerning how things should be interpreted; are changes in genes part of the overall change, or the cause of the change?
edit on 2-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

EnPassant

I find statements like this, and statements that humanity is only an insignificant speck in a vast universe, demeaning to humanity and completely unrealistic and superficial. Humans are, as far as we know, the most developed physical beings in the universe. We should not use these expressions to belittle humanity. Nor should we inflate ourselves with arrogance.



On the contrary I think we should be doing both at the same time, much more expansive view of who we are in our reality.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

EnPassant

Seemingly it does. I have no doubt that genes are an important part of the whole scheme of things.


So if we agree that natural selection requires genetic variation, where does this variation come from?



My problem is that claims are being made for genes that are not supported by evidence. Nor do I have any doubt that small changes in species are required for Natural Selection to weed out the less fit, but what is causing these changes? I don't believe it is the genome although the genome is also changed.


Are you denying that changes in the genes cause changes in the species? There's an entire biotech industry that would tend to disagree (hint: it wouldn't exist if you were correct).


If a new species is to emerge the protein makers would also have to keep pace with those changes but that does not mean the protein makers are responsible for the changes.


I have no idea what this means. What is keeping pace with what?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

So if we agree that natural selection requires genetic variation, where does this variation come from?


From whatever drives evolution. 'Require' may not be the exact word. Change may inevitably involve changes to genes as well.


Are you denying that changes in the genes cause changes in the species? There's an entire biotech industry that would tend to disagree (hint: it wouldn't exist if you were correct).


No, if genes are changed there must be a knock on effect but that does not mean genes drive evolution.


I have no idea what this means. What is keeping pace with what?


Suppose, for the sake of argument, intelligence drives evolution. If a species is changed then genetic changes would be part of that change, since they are part of the whole system. But that does not mean genes are responsible for the change. If species are to evolve their genes must be changed as well, because changes would require that many things in the organism must change to keep pace with the evolving organisms. Biochemistry, for example, might need to change but that does not mean bio chemistry initiated the change. Hormones might be changed but that does not mean hormones initiated the change. Likewise with genes.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

EnPassant

From whatever drives evolution.


Could it be mutations? If not, why not?


No, if genes are changed there must be a knock on effect but that does not mean genes drive evolution.


How do you differentiate between a "change" and a "knock on effect"? How is a "knock on effect" not evolution?


Suppose, for the sake of argument, intelligence drives evolution. If a species is changed then genetic changes would be part of that change, since they are part of the whole system.


How do you define change in a species?


But that does not mean genes are responsible for the change.


If a specific change in a species is always accompanied by a specific change in a gene and reversing the change in the gene also reverses this specific change in the species, would you say it's possible that the change in the gene is causing the change in the species? If not, why not?


If species are to evolve their genes must be changed as well, because changes would require that many things in the organism must change to keep pace with the evolving organisms.


So the changes in the genes cause changes in the organism? Why are these changes not evolution?


Biochemistry, for example, might need to change but that does not mean bio chemistry initiated the change. Hormones might be changed but that does not mean hormones initiated the change. Likewise with genes.


Would you say changes in proteins could result in changes in biochemistry? If not, why not?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Could it be mutations? If not, why not?


Possibly because a mere 23,000 genes are not sufficient to contain the information to construct an entire human body.


No, if genes are changed there must be a knock on effect but that does not mean genes drive evolution.



How do you differentiate between a "change" and a "knock on effect"? How is a "knock on effect" not evolution?


It is but that does not mean the genes changed by random mutations. Not if there is another factor changing the genes themselves.


How do you define change in a species?


Anything that is carried on to successive generations.


If a specific change in a species is always accompanied by a specific change in a gene and reversing the change in the gene also reverses this specific change in the species, would you say it's possible that the change in the gene is causing the change in the species? If not, why not?


Yes, I'm with you on this one. But are you talking about a change in terms of growth and form?


If species are to evolve their genes must be changed as well, because changes would require that many things in the organism must change to keep pace with the evolving organisms.



So the changes in the genes cause changes in the organism? Why are these changes not evolution?


No, you are missing the point. Suppose you have the power to somehow evolve species. You make the changes in terms of growth and form. But because you have made a new species you also need to change the genes accordingly because they are part of the whole system. But that does not mean the genes are what made the change in the species.


Would you say changes in proteins could result in changes in biochemistry? If not, why not?


Yes they could but mere changes in biochemistry would not be enough for evolution in terms of growth and form. I am not denying that genes have a role to play but do they contain, within themselves, a description of an entire human being? If they don't they can't evolve human beings.

The real question here is whether genes have, within themselves, the information to describe and construct an entire human being. Before genes were discovered they thought it might be the proteins that carry code. Apparently they don't so now the theory is that genes do.
edit on 2-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join